I joined the computer industry in the mid 70's when IQ tests were popular, but these became easier the more of them one did. The tests didn't appear to be much of an 'absolute'
@compgrad1 Smart people make bad arguments, too. Craig's an extremely slippery philosopher. He often contradicts himself between debates, strawmans his sceptics, and bases arguments on false premises. Like he did here.
I've never heard him address this common criticism of Kalam. Probably because asserts he already has.
I'd enjoy hearing a good counter-point to this argument. And I expect there's one out there. But I doubt it'll come from Craig.
Great video, I'd never heard that concept before, but it makes sense. We've never observed any matter being created, so why believe that it must have been?
I concur on the matters of IQ tests bit.. Albeit the multiplicity of tests is not really a bother to me. It's that concordance between tests (when made evident) are generally rejected for what can be assumed is intellectually dishonest reasons. So one theory is wrong, psychometric enthusiasts tend to be daffy about being right based on their own assumptions. Its hardly scientific then that they refuse to accept the supported refutations.
Out of curiosity, what is your main subject? I'm going to be taking psychology come september, and then specializing in music psychology, so it's cool you've been taking it as well.
@Clutchology Are you saying that logic isn't absolute? That it only applies to this universe and not any possible universe? Because I would have to disagree. While the discovery of logic could arguable be dependent on empiricism; I don't think it's possible to make an argument that it is even POSSIBLE that logic could be otherwise. If there is one please give it.
@RuinSonic I'm saying that logic isn't a prescriptive system. Things do not behave "according to rules of logic." It's not something that's "out there" governing how things work.
Logic is a human invention depending heavily on language and observation. It's a descriptive system of a basic, consistent set of "rules" describing how the universe behaves.
With this in mind, who can say what goes on outside the universe? Without observation we cannot assign any logical sets. Being as how our current logic only supports the current universe, and as far as we can say these behaviours are contained within it, it takes no account of anything outside of it.
WLC's argument depends on the implicit assertion that things exterior to our universe *obviously* behave in the same way that our universe does. I'd like to be shown how he knows this.
@Clutchology "WLC's argument depends on the implicit assertion that things exterior to our universe *obviously* behave in the same way that our universe does."
I think you have it backwards. It is our mind that follows the laws of logic which are in all existence and we interpret the world from this construct we impose on the universe. Causality is a construct of our mind. No observation could prove that an uncaused thing actually happened.
@Clutchology "Logic is a human invention depending heavily on language and observation."
I forget which philosopher said that logic is based on empiricism, basically denying the analytic synthetic distinction. I disagree because no observation can confirm or argue against logic. Anything in reality could be different. Causality could be otherwise for instance, but nowhere do we derive logic. It seems to just be there as a result of the logical construct of reality.
@RuinSonic But how can you be certain that reality is constructed logically, especially considering that logic is inherently flawed. The problem with logic is that there can exist multiple self-consistent logical systems, yet there is only one empirical universe. All of these logical systems cannot be consistent with the one universe, thus logical truth is independent of empirical truth. Logic cares only for self-consistency and cares nothing for providing an actual reflection of what is.
@EpigeneticEngineer "especially considering that logic is inherently flawed. "
And how do you know this?
"All of these logical systems cannot be consistent with the one universe"
Really? Is there a logical system that says two things can contradict each other or A = not A? Because that's the logic I'm talking about. Not people's philosophical formulations from these root logical principles.
@RuinSonic I explained this. It's because all that a logical system demands is that it be logically self-consistent. A logical system does not demand that the conclusions one derives from it be an actual reflection of the universe in which we live. The reason for this, of course, is a consequence of incompleteness. No self-consistent logical system can be non-axiomatic, and the conclusions one is able to derive from a logical system are contingent on the axioms that serve as its basis.
@EpigeneticEngineer "all that a logical system demands is that it be logically self-consistent."
Right. But I think I'm talking about logic itself. Logic doesn't "try" to be logically consistent it just is. I don't think any observation would confirm or deny logic. Either you accept it or you don't and you are in the realm of nonsense. I'm claiming certain logical principles are true undeniably. There's no possible matter that could be and not be at the same time. The burden of proof is on you.
@RuinSonic Well logic by itself is just a tool. Logic outside of a system is meaningless because it has nothing on which to act. Logic is an operator, like a plus sign. A plus sign outside the context of numbers has no use or meaning, just like logic outside of a logical system. And so to say that any observation would confirm or deny logic is like saying no observation would confirm or deny addition. It has no meaning outside of the system in which it functions...
@EpigeneticEngineer "It has no meaning outside of the system in which it functions..."
And how do you know this? Yeah I could say it's possible you're correct but I think it's much more likely that the underlying principles of logic are metaphysical properties of reality since we can talk about all sorts of non existence and imaginary impossibilities but not a square circle. If you were right you would be wrong since a contradiction of logic would make you wrong.
@RuinSonic Now you're confusing ideas within logical systems. Logical systems also contain clearly articulated definitions of ideas and terms. The reason we don't talk about square circles is because a square and a circle are well-defined ideas. They are, by definition, different entities. This has to do with the application of logic to definitions, not an inherent metaphysical property of logic. Again, this is logic as a tool.
@RuinSonic But what is logic outside of a logical system. Can you define it? I think not. It's just a nebulous term. The reason is, again, because it's an operator not a self-sufficient entity. You give it A, B, C and logic will give you D. Without assumptions A, B, C logic is nothing. Indeed, logicians define logical specific logical operators. There is nothing underlying this. It's not metaphysical, it is simply a set of very clearly defined operators.
Logic is undeniable. Saying logic might be real is like saying it's possible for there to be a square circle which contradicts the logical constructs of that idea in the first place making it self refuting. It's true because your just going to be self refuting yourself to deny it has to be true.
@RuinSonic The reason you can't square a circle is because there is a system called euclidean geometry in which by definition of squares and circles and the axioms assumed by geometry, you can prove that you would create an inconsistent system. Again, you haven't proven your point because you're demonstrating the existence of some nebulous idea which you haven't defined by appealing to the conclusion of a self-consistent logical system. You haven't shown 'logic' to exist outside any system.
@EpigeneticEngineer "You haven't shown 'logic' to exist outside any system."
I didn't claim it was outside of a system it is something we construct that is in all of reality. It's just like saying the melting point of a metal is a property and we write down rules and temperatures of this melting point just like we write rules and logic. The difference is logic has to be not just in reality but all possible reality since to make any meaningful statement it assumes logic. Hence undeniable.
@RuinSonic It doesn't *have* to be in all possible realities. Any system that doesn't "contain logic," you just cant make any meaningful statements about it. I don't see the problem there.
You haven't provided a reason why logic has to be there. You've just stated the consequence if it is not.
If there is no 'logic' as we know it outside of this universe, we can't make meaningful statements about anything external to it. Seems reasonable enough.
@Clutchology "Any system that doesn't "contain logic," you just cant make any meaningful statements about it. I don't see the problem there."
It doesn't matter whether you make the statement or not. If you're a realist and you think the principles of truth exist external to the mind then statements of logic represent the real world. So stating that there could be a possible world where logic would be wrong is a statement about this world which is self refuting.
"If you're a realist and you think the principles of truth exist external to the mind then statements of logic represent the real world. "
You can be a realist and still not think that statements of logic represent the real world. Actually, it's far more realistic to realize that they don't, unless you have verified those statements against reality.
@MomoTheBellyDancer But then logic becomes meaningless. Logic is an idea that minds produce. It's an abstract concept. But in order for it to be real it has to identify something in the external world. Otherwise logic is pure fiction or a utilitarian tool for our minds to interface with the world in some approximate way.
@MomoTheBellyDancer "Logic can be a starting point to come up with hypotheses."
Not if the basis for that hypothesis is based on fiction, no.
"And it is thus inherently limited to the properties of those minds."
Yes, which is the logical structure of the natural world.
"You nailed it."
Well then you aren't talking about gaining knowledge. You don't have to be to be a scientists but knowledge requires more than the utility of science.
@MomoTheBellyDancer "The fact that we always expand and adapt our logical rules to reality is already an indication for that."
When A = not-A let me know. Until then there are principles of logic that never have changed. Logic in the traditional form has not changed. People's derivations into other rules have come into question.
"How can you say an idea is valid if you don't test it?"
How can you say a test is valid if you don't test it? Infinite regress invalidates your claim.
I'm not talking about stuff like that. It seemed logical though that light, as a wave, propagates through a medium. Trough experiment we found out that it doesn't.
"How can you say a test is valid if you don't test it?"
@MomoTheBellyDancer "By claiming philosophers don't test their ideas? How so?"
Wow, we must respect WLC for being a "philosopher". Yeah, he is, but he is also a wanker who preaches to his church of apologists using out of context atheist arguments.
"You know, you're free to start making sense anytime now."
Your original statement didn't make sense. Our intuition is often proven to be wrong. Creationist thinking is a perfect example of how intuition fails to be another word for logic.
Great, then maybe we don't have much to disagree with. If by logic you mean intuitive thinking then yes logic can be wrong. However, I don't think it is wise to choose the word logic for that. There is a view that logic is not absolute or that it could be wrong. I prefer to say what seems reasonable or what is intuitive to us isn't always true.
". If by logic you mean intuitive thinking then yes logic can be wrong. "
Logic is a construct that does not exist outside of the mind that build it. In principle, all we consider "logic" could be totally wrong. It's still all we have though when we try to guess how our universe works, which could be a called a burden of the wiring of our brains.
@MomoTheBellyDancer So what your saying is we don't know logic is true? In essence wouldn't that mean that we don't know anything since reason flows from a standard of logic? Is that an epistemology you really want to defend?
@Clutchology At best you would have to be agnostic since any claim to possibility implies there is something you can gather from the nature of this world or reality that would say something could be the case logically.
But are you really consistent? Because who are you to say that God could exist and not exist at the same time since the possibility of God's existence is outside of our reality and logic as you claim. How can you say it really is illogical under your view?
@RuinSonic ...The point is that logic alone is not sufficient to describe the way the universe actually is. One can easily find a logically self-consistent system that in no way reflects the reality of the universe. Logic is simply a tool by which to derive conclusions from a set of given assumptions or accepted truths. This is the difference between science and math/logic. The former uses observation and logic to describe what is, the latter uses axioms and logic to describe...anything.
@EpigeneticEngineer "One can easily find a logically self-consistent system"
I really need an example otherwise this is a very dubious claim. I'm talking about the principles for which we make logical symbols and propositions. I want to make sure we are on the same page because there's a difference between logic as we cognitively make symbols of reality vs. if there is an objective reality of principles that underlay what we call logic.
@RuinSonic Here's an example. Euclidean versus hyperbolic geometry. They are mathematical systems that are logically self-consistent but not consistent with each other. This is why logic fails as a self-sufficient tool to describe the universe. Which is true? Well, both, given certain assumptions. This is where science comes in. You make empirical observations (the assumptions) in order to determine the logical system that applies to the universe (it turns out we're hyperbolic).
They make assumptions which cannot be proven logically they can be logically consistent and one could represent one thing and another could contradict it. Take Creationism. You could make that a logically consistent set of beliefs, but that doesn't mean it's rooted in logic, which is what I think you were saying about how logical systems aren't rooted in reality. What I'm saying is logical systems have to be rooted in logic.
Okay lesson #1 about IQs: The average IQ of the populace is 100. If most ppl claim to be 120-130... most of those people are missinformed, retarded, or lying.
Lesson #2: Accurate IQ tests are administered by licensed Psychologists... not freebie websites that text your IQ to you if you submit your # after 10 questions that a 6 yr old could answer.
Uh, yeah.. If people claim those to be valid, it is laughable. However, the point remains. There is insufficient concordance within theoretical frameworks to best use measures, to actually establish a theory of intelligence.
Quotients differ for the general crystalline and general fluid intelligences. Too much in difference. The measures have failed to harmoniously address the underlying structures of intelligence. Which can illustrate that there is absence of fundamentals.
If most people claim to be around 130, isn't the more reasonable explanation that only the people with higher figures wanted to answer the question? Especially since just under 10% of those that watched the video answered, and most admitted it was an unreliable figure because it was based on the cheap pseudo-tests.
Certainly seems more reasonable than calling them liars or retards.
Or, hell, maybe I just have a genius subscriber base.
True, your subscriber base is probably above average in intelligence, but the main point I was trying to make is that most people don't know their IQ, including most people who THINK they know their IQ.
I completely agree. That's probably why only maybe 7% of people who watched gave an answer. And we're talking a subscriber base based on philosophy and all that academic shit. We're more likely to be sad enough to care than your average person.
And many of those implied they didn't exactly trust the results.
@koulac I'm not familiar with the individual academics, but I would like people to recognize that there are many aspects to intelligence, and that intelligence tests such as the IQ, SAT, and ACT are extremely limited in scope. (not sure what the equivalents are in the UK)
Great points. From an atomic perspective there may as well be no distinction between what is alive and what is dead. The atoms in people's bodies even get replaced every seven years whether they are conscious of that happening or not.
@Clutchology I watched a little of it but currently playing it at this time I love those FMV adventure games for some reason. The game story is great ... the acting and green screening and some of the little details of what happens are rather terrible.
There's a gigantic flaw with this video at 5:02. There is much in logic to support the claim that the Universe was caused based on Christian ground. Since Christians define the Univese as all of the spatio-temporal realm, since the Univese is in time, it changes, and things that change, require a cause, otherwise, they would have to be their own efficient cause. Also, temporal infinities are logically impossible.
The experience, most certainly, can be arranged. Fortunately, it has ZERO to do with a god. We can strap you into Persingers God Helmet, should you be particularly sensitive. We can then step it up to rather powerful phenethylamines and if thats not enough, the tryptamines. God can be fully induced in a laboratory under 100% repeatable conditions. God is a figment of our brain chemistry, nothing more.
The first premise is false, not because 'Nothing ever began to exist.'
But rather Quantum events can happen without cause. Particles can be created on Quantum scales with no cause. Interestingly enough the ideas about how the universe came into place are based around the net amount in the universe is within Quantum Scales. The way this can be explained is Gravitational Energy is negative Balancing out energy which formed matter.
cont/ btw.... worse still! make sure that all the humans who are supposed to have knowledge of a said creator, disagree on the nature of this 'creator'.
Yes... how is it that suddenly out of nowhere.... bam! .... a creator who is infinitely more powerful than any living thing you can detect and yet refuses to clear up wether he exists or not by simply doing something convincing like create a universe with life on it, and throw a bunch of disasters in there with a convoluted explanation. ROFL
oh no he didn't. he did not just say he "came into existance" at conception. he's not convieniently igoring science and conservation of energy and all that shit he tries to use for his cosmological argument is he?
@VirgilFoxMusic Does it matter? Craig admitted that he's not interested in the arguments or truth, all he wants is to prove his position. He is an anti-intellectual dishonest scumbag.
All atoms we are made of, excepting hydrogen, were formed in stars (or explosions of stars) and therefore did not exist since the start of time (like you claim in 1:50). However this is a technicality; energy is conserved since the start of time so the argument is still valid.
Well the heavier atoms where created from hydrogen being changed in these stars so his point is still valid. Its just hydrogen changing forms nothing new is being created in the stars either.
Koholint Island from The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening. I would want to live there because #1, it was the first video game I ever played and it still has a huge influence on me to this day. And #2 because I like the idea of living inside the dreamworld of a flying whale.
@Stephen5000 LMAO. That's just it—I don't know. But isn't that one of the things that makes epistemology interesting? However, until I see some evidence to support that concept, it isn't useful to live my life with the supposition that I'm trapped in the dreamworld of a flying whale. =P
Koholint Island from The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening. I would want to live there because #1, it was the first video game I ever played and it still has a huge influence on me to this day. And #2 because I like the idea of living inside the dreamworld of a flying whale.
Their validity depends on what you hang on them. Are Vo2 tests valid? Well, yes and no - they are valid inasmuch as they tell you your oxygen uptake (per kg or gross depending how you measure it) for the discipline you are doing - if you bear thant in mind they are valid. You can choose to disregard Vo2 on the basis that Lance Armstrong will score higher on a bike test than a treadmill test but that shows your lack of sophistication, not the tests, Likewise with IQ: there is...
...no single test that will provide a definitive number for 'intelligence' any more than you can have a single figure for Vo2 (let alone fitness generally which includes strength, flexibility, lactic acid tolerance etc) but that doesn't make the tests meaningless.
WLC knows this, he is just a cunt. I know that is putting it bluntly but it is true. He is in his own studio talking to a friendly team preaching to the converted.
This argument he is making is a poor one and it surprises me that WLC is making it tbh, usually he comes up with something a bit more sophisticated than this.
Incidentally, does it concern you that 'rationalresponseguy' (assuming he isn't drcraigvideos) has employed such very selective editing on your videos and others? And that he provides no link or any sort of direction to the full video at all?
I've already responded to that guy. You can check that out now. My other video I uploaded but decided to remake and took it down. I was reading from a script but problem is I can't read from a script. I sound bland and boring.
The script will be available but I will remake the video without reading from it.
"Intellectual slut" LMAO
I like that! Mind if I use it?
nosajj12345 7 months ago
I joined the computer industry in the mid 70's when IQ tests were popular, but these became easier the more of them one did. The tests didn't appear to be much of an 'absolute'
gamesbok 8 months ago
C'mon clutch, don't you think you're a little off Craig's league? He'd destroy your arguments in a second.
compgrad1 11 months ago
@compgrad1 Smart people make bad arguments, too. Craig's an extremely slippery philosopher. He often contradicts himself between debates, strawmans his sceptics, and bases arguments on false premises. Like he did here.
I've never heard him address this common criticism of Kalam. Probably because asserts he already has.
I'd enjoy hearing a good counter-point to this argument. And I expect there's one out there. But I doubt it'll come from Craig.
Clutchology 11 months ago 5
... "Man then goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed at the next zebra crossing." ... :)
Mitche23 1 year ago
Great video, I'd never heard that concept before, but it makes sense. We've never observed any matter being created, so why believe that it must have been?
ScissorHand26 1 year ago
1:38 *SIGH* MY GOODNESS, YOU PEOPLE ARE MORONS! William Lane Craig knows what you idiots are saying.
Smpunditz missed it: watch?v=B1aVaAID120
AndromedasWake missed it: watch?v=Bnw2uUgi--s
And of course you missed it.
rationalresponseguy 1 year ago
@rationalresponseguy No, he does not.
He can regurgitate the words, but seems to have no grasp of the implications or intentions behind them.
If he did then he would never make this objection. Because it doesn't address our point.
And you making that comment seems to indicate that you don't either.
Saying otherwise is equivalent to telling us what we mean. We're quite capable of doing that for ourselves, thanks.
But go ahead. Keep calling us all morons. That's productive to conversation.
Clutchology 1 year ago 7
Can you shave your eyebrows so you look like you've emerged from the matrix?
theneonfire 1 year ago
@theneonfire
I second this notion.
ScissorHand26 1 year ago
I like the way you think. Every argument for the existence of the gods is flawed - it's just a question of finding which fallacy is used.
dave28lax 1 year ago
Yeah you can learn specifically how to do IQ tests through practice. There are a limited number of types of question.
It's a shame Mensa seem to have removed the stating of the obvious off their front page :(
They used to have a statement saying 2 of every Hundred were in the top 2%.
OlympicRudi 1 year ago
Woo! Beautifully put! THAT is something to remember.
Venaloid 1 year ago
Quite frankly i'd probably have to pick some eroge-world, must be a lot like heaven in Islam: Submissive virgins everywhere and you're the bomb.
ELStalky 1 year ago
I concur on the matters of IQ tests bit.. Albeit the multiplicity of tests is not really a bother to me. It's that concordance between tests (when made evident) are generally rejected for what can be assumed is intellectually dishonest reasons. So one theory is wrong, psychometric enthusiasts tend to be daffy about being right based on their own assumptions. Its hardly scientific then that they refuse to accept the supported refutations.
Psychology Major here btw.
Thanks clutch, good vid.
koulac 1 year ago
@koulac I've taken a few psychology modules on the side throughout my course, and we've covered a lot of that stuff in lectures and assignments.
I obviously wont have the understanding of them that you do, but I've explored it enough to have a laymen grasp of these issues.
Probably should have taken it as my degree. I do better in those modules than I do in my actual subject.
Clutchology 1 year ago
@Clutchology
Out of curiosity, what is your main subject? I'm going to be taking psychology come september, and then specializing in music psychology, so it's cool you've been taking it as well.
ScissorHand26 1 year ago
@Clutchology Are you saying that logic isn't absolute? That it only applies to this universe and not any possible universe? Because I would have to disagree. While the discovery of logic could arguable be dependent on empiricism; I don't think it's possible to make an argument that it is even POSSIBLE that logic could be otherwise. If there is one please give it.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@RuinSonic I'm saying that logic isn't a prescriptive system. Things do not behave "according to rules of logic." It's not something that's "out there" governing how things work.
Logic is a human invention depending heavily on language and observation. It's a descriptive system of a basic, consistent set of "rules" describing how the universe behaves.
Clutchology 1 year ago
With this in mind, who can say what goes on outside the universe? Without observation we cannot assign any logical sets. Being as how our current logic only supports the current universe, and as far as we can say these behaviours are contained within it, it takes no account of anything outside of it.
WLC's argument depends on the implicit assertion that things exterior to our universe *obviously* behave in the same way that our universe does. I'd like to be shown how he knows this.
Clutchology 1 year ago
@Clutchology "WLC's argument depends on the implicit assertion that things exterior to our universe *obviously* behave in the same way that our universe does."
I think you have it backwards. It is our mind that follows the laws of logic which are in all existence and we interpret the world from this construct we impose on the universe. Causality is a construct of our mind. No observation could prove that an uncaused thing actually happened.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@Clutchology "Logic is a human invention depending heavily on language and observation."
I forget which philosopher said that logic is based on empiricism, basically denying the analytic synthetic distinction. I disagree because no observation can confirm or argue against logic. Anything in reality could be different. Causality could be otherwise for instance, but nowhere do we derive logic. It seems to just be there as a result of the logical construct of reality.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@RuinSonic But how can you be certain that reality is constructed logically, especially considering that logic is inherently flawed. The problem with logic is that there can exist multiple self-consistent logical systems, yet there is only one empirical universe. All of these logical systems cannot be consistent with the one universe, thus logical truth is independent of empirical truth. Logic cares only for self-consistency and cares nothing for providing an actual reflection of what is.
EpigeneticEngineer 1 year ago
@EpigeneticEngineer "especially considering that logic is inherently flawed. "
And how do you know this?
"All of these logical systems cannot be consistent with the one universe"
Really? Is there a logical system that says two things can contradict each other or A = not A? Because that's the logic I'm talking about. Not people's philosophical formulations from these root logical principles.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@RuinSonic I explained this. It's because all that a logical system demands is that it be logically self-consistent. A logical system does not demand that the conclusions one derives from it be an actual reflection of the universe in which we live. The reason for this, of course, is a consequence of incompleteness. No self-consistent logical system can be non-axiomatic, and the conclusions one is able to derive from a logical system are contingent on the axioms that serve as its basis.
EpigeneticEngineer 1 year ago
@EpigeneticEngineer "all that a logical system demands is that it be logically self-consistent."
Right. But I think I'm talking about logic itself. Logic doesn't "try" to be logically consistent it just is. I don't think any observation would confirm or deny logic. Either you accept it or you don't and you are in the realm of nonsense. I'm claiming certain logical principles are true undeniably. There's no possible matter that could be and not be at the same time. The burden of proof is on you.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@RuinSonic Well logic by itself is just a tool. Logic outside of a system is meaningless because it has nothing on which to act. Logic is an operator, like a plus sign. A plus sign outside the context of numbers has no use or meaning, just like logic outside of a logical system. And so to say that any observation would confirm or deny logic is like saying no observation would confirm or deny addition. It has no meaning outside of the system in which it functions...
EpigeneticEngineer 1 year ago
@EpigeneticEngineer "It has no meaning outside of the system in which it functions..."
And how do you know this? Yeah I could say it's possible you're correct but I think it's much more likely that the underlying principles of logic are metaphysical properties of reality since we can talk about all sorts of non existence and imaginary impossibilities but not a square circle. If you were right you would be wrong since a contradiction of logic would make you wrong.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@RuinSonic Now you're confusing ideas within logical systems. Logical systems also contain clearly articulated definitions of ideas and terms. The reason we don't talk about square circles is because a square and a circle are well-defined ideas. They are, by definition, different entities. This has to do with the application of logic to definitions, not an inherent metaphysical property of logic. Again, this is logic as a tool.
EpigeneticEngineer 1 year ago
@EpigeneticEngineer "This has to do with the application of logic to definitions, "
And I've said all along I'm talking about logic. Not an application or formation of it. And yes I'm talking about well defined ideas.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@RuinSonic But what is logic outside of a logical system. Can you define it? I think not. It's just a nebulous term. The reason is, again, because it's an operator not a self-sufficient entity. You give it A, B, C and logic will give you D. Without assumptions A, B, C logic is nothing. Indeed, logicians define logical specific logical operators. There is nothing underlying this. It's not metaphysical, it is simply a set of very clearly defined operators.
EpigeneticEngineer 1 year ago
@EpigeneticEngineer "It's not metaphysical"
Logic is undeniable. Saying logic might be real is like saying it's possible for there to be a square circle which contradicts the logical constructs of that idea in the first place making it self refuting. It's true because your just going to be self refuting yourself to deny it has to be true.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@RuinSonic The reason you can't square a circle is because there is a system called euclidean geometry in which by definition of squares and circles and the axioms assumed by geometry, you can prove that you would create an inconsistent system. Again, you haven't proven your point because you're demonstrating the existence of some nebulous idea which you haven't defined by appealing to the conclusion of a self-consistent logical system. You haven't shown 'logic' to exist outside any system.
EpigeneticEngineer 1 year ago
@EpigeneticEngineer "You haven't shown 'logic' to exist outside any system."
I didn't claim it was outside of a system it is something we construct that is in all of reality. It's just like saying the melting point of a metal is a property and we write down rules and temperatures of this melting point just like we write rules and logic. The difference is logic has to be not just in reality but all possible reality since to make any meaningful statement it assumes logic. Hence undeniable.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@RuinSonic It doesn't *have* to be in all possible realities. Any system that doesn't "contain logic," you just cant make any meaningful statements about it. I don't see the problem there.
You haven't provided a reason why logic has to be there. You've just stated the consequence if it is not.
If there is no 'logic' as we know it outside of this universe, we can't make meaningful statements about anything external to it. Seems reasonable enough.
Clutchology 1 year ago
@Clutchology "Any system that doesn't "contain logic," you just cant make any meaningful statements about it. I don't see the problem there."
It doesn't matter whether you make the statement or not. If you're a realist and you think the principles of truth exist external to the mind then statements of logic represent the real world. So stating that there could be a possible world where logic would be wrong is a statement about this world which is self refuting.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@RuinSonic
"If you're a realist and you think the principles of truth exist external to the mind then statements of logic represent the real world. "
You can be a realist and still not think that statements of logic represent the real world. Actually, it's far more realistic to realize that they don't, unless you have verified those statements against reality.
MomoTheBellyDancer 4 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer But then logic becomes meaningless. Logic is an idea that minds produce. It's an abstract concept. But in order for it to be real it has to identify something in the external world. Otherwise logic is pure fiction or a utilitarian tool for our minds to interface with the world in some approximate way.
RuinSonic 4 months ago
@RuinSonic
"But then logic becomes meaningless. "
I wouldn't say that. Logic can be a starting point to come up with hypotheses.
"Logic is an idea that minds produce."
And it is thus inherently limited to the properties of those minds.
"a utilitarian tool for our minds to interface with the world in some approximate way."
You nailed it.
MomoTheBellyDancer 4 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer "Logic can be a starting point to come up with hypotheses."
Not if the basis for that hypothesis is based on fiction, no.
"And it is thus inherently limited to the properties of those minds."
Yes, which is the logical structure of the natural world.
"You nailed it."
Well then you aren't talking about gaining knowledge. You don't have to be to be a scientists but knowledge requires more than the utility of science.
RuinSonic 4 months ago
@RuinSonic
"Not if the basis for that hypothesis is based on fiction, no."
A hypothesis like that is unlikely to be true, but if it gets verified by observations then it might just be considered a theory.
"Yes, which is the logical structure of the natural world."
Nope. The fact that we always expand and adapt our logical rules to reality is already an indication for that.
"knowledge requires more than the utility of science"
How can you say an idea is valid if you don't test it?
MomoTheBellyDancer 4 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer "The fact that we always expand and adapt our logical rules to reality is already an indication for that."
When A = not-A let me know. Until then there are principles of logic that never have changed. Logic in the traditional form has not changed. People's derivations into other rules have come into question.
"How can you say an idea is valid if you don't test it?"
How can you say a test is valid if you don't test it? Infinite regress invalidates your claim.
RuinSonic 4 months ago
@RuinSonic
"When A = not-A let me know. "
I'm not talking about stuff like that. It seemed logical though that light, as a wave, propagates through a medium. Trough experiment we found out that it doesn't.
"How can you say a test is valid if you don't test it?"
Bullshit argument is bullshit.
MomoTheBellyDancer 4 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer "as a wave, propagates through a medium."
I don't like how people have bastardized the word logic to the point where it can mean mere intuition.
"Bullshit argument is bullshit."
I'm just going off of what you said. Every idea needs to be tested. You need to either clarify or admit that isn't true.
RuinSonic 4 months ago
@RuinSonic
"I don't like how people have bastardized the word logic to the point where it can mean mere intuition."
The two have significant overlap.
"Every idea needs to be tested."
Yet philosophers like Craig refuse to do that.
MomoTheBellyDancer 4 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer "Yet philosophers like Craig refuse to do that."
And you like WLC seem to like taking things out of context.
"The two have significant overlap."
So does Creationism have a lot of overlap with intuitive thinking.
RuinSonic 4 months ago
@RuinSonic
"And you like WLC seem to like taking things out of context."
By claiming philosophers don't test their ideas? How so?
"So does Creationism have a lot of overlap with intuitive thinking."
You know, you're free to start making sense anytime now.
MomoTheBellyDancer 4 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer "By claiming philosophers don't test their ideas? How so?"
Wow, we must respect WLC for being a "philosopher". Yeah, he is, but he is also a wanker who preaches to his church of apologists using out of context atheist arguments.
"You know, you're free to start making sense anytime now."
Your original statement didn't make sense. Our intuition is often proven to be wrong. Creationist thinking is a perfect example of how intuition fails to be another word for logic.
RuinSonic 4 months ago
@RuinSonic
"Wow, we must respect WLC for being a "philosopher"."
If he really is considered to be one by his peers, then it simply means that philosophy has reached a dead end.
"Our intuition is often proven to be wrong"
Which is exactly my original sentiment.
MomoTheBellyDancer 4 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
"Which is exactly my original sentiment. "
Great, then maybe we don't have much to disagree with. If by logic you mean intuitive thinking then yes logic can be wrong. However, I don't think it is wise to choose the word logic for that. There is a view that logic is not absolute or that it could be wrong. I prefer to say what seems reasonable or what is intuitive to us isn't always true.
RuinSonic 4 months ago
@RuinSonic
". If by logic you mean intuitive thinking then yes logic can be wrong. "
Logic is a construct that does not exist outside of the mind that build it. In principle, all we consider "logic" could be totally wrong. It's still all we have though when we try to guess how our universe works, which could be a called a burden of the wiring of our brains.
MomoTheBellyDancer 4 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer So what your saying is we don't know logic is true? In essence wouldn't that mean that we don't know anything since reason flows from a standard of logic? Is that an epistemology you really want to defend?
RuinSonic 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RuinSonic
"So what your saying is we don't know logic is true?"
No. Read again, this time for comprehension.
MomoTheBellyDancer 4 months ago
@Clutchology At best you would have to be agnostic since any claim to possibility implies there is something you can gather from the nature of this world or reality that would say something could be the case logically.
But are you really consistent? Because who are you to say that God could exist and not exist at the same time since the possibility of God's existence is outside of our reality and logic as you claim. How can you say it really is illogical under your view?
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@RuinSonic ...The point is that logic alone is not sufficient to describe the way the universe actually is. One can easily find a logically self-consistent system that in no way reflects the reality of the universe. Logic is simply a tool by which to derive conclusions from a set of given assumptions or accepted truths. This is the difference between science and math/logic. The former uses observation and logic to describe what is, the latter uses axioms and logic to describe...anything.
EpigeneticEngineer 1 year ago
@EpigeneticEngineer "One can easily find a logically self-consistent system"
I really need an example otherwise this is a very dubious claim. I'm talking about the principles for which we make logical symbols and propositions. I want to make sure we are on the same page because there's a difference between logic as we cognitively make symbols of reality vs. if there is an objective reality of principles that underlay what we call logic.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
@RuinSonic Here's an example. Euclidean versus hyperbolic geometry. They are mathematical systems that are logically self-consistent but not consistent with each other. This is why logic fails as a self-sufficient tool to describe the universe. Which is true? Well, both, given certain assumptions. This is where science comes in. You make empirical observations (the assumptions) in order to determine the logical system that applies to the universe (it turns out we're hyperbolic).
EpigeneticEngineer 1 year ago
@EpigeneticEngineer "Euclidean versus hyperbolic geometry."
They make assumptions which cannot be proven logically they can be logically consistent and one could represent one thing and another could contradict it. Take Creationism. You could make that a logically consistent set of beliefs, but that doesn't mean it's rooted in logic, which is what I think you were saying about how logical systems aren't rooted in reality. What I'm saying is logical systems have to be rooted in logic.
RuinSonic 1 year ago
IQ tests are designed for white males? Doesn't that in fact support the premise according to which different races score differently?
isreasontaboo 1 year ago
Oddworld! The best video game universe ever! The nature, the sounds, the creatures, it's just beautiful.
Scaramanganexuspluss 1 year ago
Okay lesson #1 about IQs: The average IQ of the populace is 100. If most ppl claim to be 120-130... most of those people are missinformed, retarded, or lying.
Lesson #2: Accurate IQ tests are administered by licensed Psychologists... not freebie websites that text your IQ to you if you submit your # after 10 questions that a 6 yr old could answer.
CharBroiled04 1 year ago
@CharBroiled04
Uh, yeah.. If people claim those to be valid, it is laughable. However, the point remains. There is insufficient concordance within theoretical frameworks to best use measures, to actually establish a theory of intelligence.
Quotients differ for the general crystalline and general fluid intelligences. Too much in difference. The measures have failed to harmoniously address the underlying structures of intelligence. Which can illustrate that there is absence of fundamentals.
koulac 1 year ago
@CharBroiled04
If most people claim to be around 130, isn't the more reasonable explanation that only the people with higher figures wanted to answer the question? Especially since just under 10% of those that watched the video answered, and most admitted it was an unreliable figure because it was based on the cheap pseudo-tests.
Certainly seems more reasonable than calling them liars or retards.
Or, hell, maybe I just have a genius subscriber base.
Clutchology 1 year ago
@Clutchology
True, your subscriber base is probably above average in intelligence, but the main point I was trying to make is that most people don't know their IQ, including most people who THINK they know their IQ.
CharBroiled04 1 year ago
@CharBroiled04
I completely agree. That's probably why only maybe 7% of people who watched gave an answer. And we're talking a subscriber base based on philosophy and all that academic shit. We're more likely to be sad enough to care than your average person.
And many of those implied they didn't exactly trust the results.
Clutchology 1 year ago
Oh yeah IQ is bullshit. Try multiple intelligence theory and we might start talking
anthonzi 1 year ago
@anthonzi
Gardner's theory? Well I like it myself, but it carries bugger all validity at present. The measures are just too weak.
koulac 1 year ago
@koulac I'm not familiar with the individual academics, but I would like people to recognize that there are many aspects to intelligence, and that intelligence tests such as the IQ, SAT, and ACT are extremely limited in scope. (not sure what the equivalents are in the UK)
anthonzi 1 year ago
Great points. From an atomic perspective there may as well be no distinction between what is alive and what is dead. The atoms in people's bodies even get replaced every seven years whether they are conscious of that happening or not.
HaleyMary 1 year ago
Eve online... obviously.
godsentyes 1 year ago
Hit supernaturally like in the game Phantasmagoria II when the main character is at his office computer and gets punched in the jaw by the air lol.
Just don't check your email the spirits can't get you if you don't check your email, wait than you'll never win the game either.
Ok enough silliness good to see you and hear your thoughts.
Aberran
AxiomofDiscord 1 year ago
@AxiomofDiscord Did you watch the Spoony Experiment playthrough like I did?
That game is so, so bad it's hilarious.
Imagine that as your video game universe! E-P-I-C!
Clutchology 1 year ago
@Clutchology I watched a little of it but currently playing it at this time I love those FMV adventure games for some reason. The game story is great ... the acting and green screening and some of the little details of what happens are rather terrible.
AxiomofDiscord 1 year ago
The Mushroom Kingdom from Super Mario: everyone's short & cute and wears polka-dot hats.
Stephen5000 1 year ago
There's a gigantic flaw with this video at 5:02. There is much in logic to support the claim that the Universe was caused based on Christian ground. Since Christians define the Univese as all of the spatio-temporal realm, since the Univese is in time, it changes, and things that change, require a cause, otherwise, they would have to be their own efficient cause. Also, temporal infinities are logically impossible.
Dhorpatan 1 year ago
Thank your for this.
ZullGostnu2 1 year ago
The experience, most certainly, can be arranged. Fortunately, it has ZERO to do with a god. We can strap you into Persingers God Helmet, should you be particularly sensitive. We can then step it up to rather powerful phenethylamines and if thats not enough, the tryptamines. God can be fully induced in a laboratory under 100% repeatable conditions. God is a figment of our brain chemistry, nothing more.
bamboo4tameshigiri 1 year ago
GTA universe... so long as I get to be the main character. Everyone else gets killed and doesn't respawn. xD
MagnusIan 1 year ago
lol ur face when that buzzer went off xD
Uselesschris 1 year ago
The first premise is false, not because 'Nothing ever began to exist.'
But rather Quantum events can happen without cause. Particles can be created on Quantum scales with no cause. Interestingly enough the ideas about how the universe came into place are based around the net amount in the universe is within Quantum Scales. The way this can be explained is Gravitational Energy is negative Balancing out energy which formed matter.
Zekian 1 year ago
cont/ btw.... worse still! make sure that all the humans who are supposed to have knowledge of a said creator, disagree on the nature of this 'creator'.
Ep1cure 1 year ago
Sims, eventhough I never played it and normally play FPS games.
DeletedDelusion 1 year ago
Yes... how is it that suddenly out of nowhere.... bam! .... a creator who is infinitely more powerful than any living thing you can detect and yet refuses to clear up wether he exists or not by simply doing something convincing like create a universe with life on it, and throw a bunch of disasters in there with a convoluted explanation. ROFL
Ep1cure 1 year ago
Mass Effect 2.
deviouscola 1 year ago
Dead or Alive Extreme Volleyball
defcore108 1 year ago
oh no he didn't. he did not just say he "came into existance" at conception. he's not convieniently igoring science and conservation of energy and all that shit he tries to use for his cosmological argument is he?
BillKiernan 1 year ago
"My IQ is 20.. I move towards the light and feed." LOL
Reggis420 1 year ago
clutch i don't think your a slut
evi0blackeagle 1 year ago
Have you directed this video directly to WLC?
I mean, will he actually see it?
VirgilFoxMusic 1 year ago
@VirgilFoxMusic It was for my subscribers to see more than anyone else.
I doubt he'll ever see it. And if he did, something tells me it won't make a difference.
Addressing it to him was to make me feel like I was important for once.
Clutchology 1 year ago
@VirgilFoxMusic Does it matter? Craig admitted that he's not interested in the arguments or truth, all he wants is to prove his position. He is an anti-intellectual dishonest scumbag.
Asylumer 1 year ago
@Asylumer I asked out of genuine interest. The question was not loaded in any way.
VirgilFoxMusic 1 year ago
@VirgilFoxMusic Sorry, my response was kind of a rant about Willie :p
That guy gets under my skin. Your question was valid, I was just letting off some steam.
Asylumer 1 year ago
@Asylumer Oh, he gets under my skin too! I understand where you're coming from.
VirgilFoxMusic 1 year ago
I love that you call him Willie. LOL.
Craig is dishonest and a propagandist.
Very nicely done, Clutch.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
All atoms we are made of, excepting hydrogen, were formed in stars (or explosions of stars) and therefore did not exist since the start of time (like you claim in 1:50). However this is a technicality; energy is conserved since the start of time so the argument is still valid.
Waldheri 1 year ago
@Waldheri Oh man, careless slip of the tongue on my part. I'm going to blame my lack of sleep for that.
Thanks for catching it.
Clutchology 1 year ago
@Waldheri
Well the heavier atoms where created from hydrogen being changed in these stars so his point is still valid. Its just hydrogen changing forms nothing new is being created in the stars either.
qarohc 1 year ago
Koholint Island from The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening. I would want to live there because #1, it was the first video game I ever played and it still has a huge influence on me to this day. And #2 because I like the idea of living inside the dreamworld of a flying whale.
MarlinBeta 1 year ago
@MarlinBeta How do you know you're not?
Stephen5000 1 year ago
@Stephen5000 LMAO. That's just it—I don't know. But isn't that one of the things that makes epistemology interesting? However, until I see some evidence to support that concept, it isn't useful to live my life with the supposition that I'm trapped in the dreamworld of a flying whale. =P
MarlinBeta 1 year ago
Koholint Island from The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening. I would want to live there because #1, it was the first video game I ever played and it still has a huge influence on me to this day. And #2 because I like the idea of living inside the dreamworld of a flying whale.
MarlinBeta 1 year ago
ok, IQ tests.
Their validity depends on what you hang on them. Are Vo2 tests valid? Well, yes and no - they are valid inasmuch as they tell you your oxygen uptake (per kg or gross depending how you measure it) for the discipline you are doing - if you bear thant in mind they are valid. You can choose to disregard Vo2 on the basis that Lance Armstrong will score higher on a bike test than a treadmill test but that shows your lack of sophistication, not the tests, Likewise with IQ: there is...
noelplum99 1 year ago
@noelplum99
...no single test that will provide a definitive number for 'intelligence' any more than you can have a single figure for Vo2 (let alone fitness generally which includes strength, flexibility, lactic acid tolerance etc) but that doesn't make the tests meaningless.
noelplum99 1 year ago
I suppose WLC doesn't think God began to exist? Then he'd have an infinite regress on his hands.
Anyway, fail on his part on multiple levels.
nemo3590 1 year ago
Mass Effect.
ecumenopolis0 1 year ago
Nice to see you back, seems it has been quite a while.That or my sub box has decided it hates you. "Intellectual slut" - Awesome.
Meiklelodians 1 year ago
WLC knows this, he is just a cunt. I know that is putting it bluntly but it is true. He is in his own studio talking to a friendly team preaching to the converted.
This argument he is making is a poor one and it surprises me that WLC is making it tbh, usually he comes up with something a bit more sophisticated than this.
noelplum99 1 year ago 6
I'm uploading a video right now that makes the same point. The whole kalam argument commits a fallacy of equivocation.
smpunditz 1 year ago
@smpunditz Sweet! I'll get right on that.
Incidentally, does it concern you that 'rationalresponseguy' (assuming he isn't drcraigvideos) has employed such very selective editing on your videos and others? And that he provides no link or any sort of direction to the full video at all?
If that was me, I'd be pissed.
Clutchology 1 year ago
@Clutchology
I've already responded to that guy. You can check that out now. My other video I uploaded but decided to remake and took it down. I was reading from a script but problem is I can't read from a script. I sound bland and boring.
The script will be available but I will remake the video without reading from it.
smpunditz 1 year ago
"can't kalam"
that was a clever play on words. +1
Albukhshi 1 year ago