If you know anyone who's been falsely DMCA'd by William Lane Craig collaborator John Leonard, otherwise known as drcraigvideos, please contact @thunderf00t.
The name calling was in reply to atheists who call people names for even raising questions to evolution, It was ambiguous and wasn't directed towards one person, ha its funny you guys try to take the high ground now
I didn't try to combat scientists with phd's that support evolution or to support scientists with phd's that support intelligent design, so im not a hypocrite yo, nice try and atheists are arrogant cocksuckers, just like you trying to talk shit about me being a hypocrite when I didn't try to act like I am smarter than a phd evolutionary scientist, you beautifully illustrated my point good sir
@squareboys1 its funny u mention that, b/c none of craigs arguments are his. theyre all regurgitations of century old arguments. Id need to see citation on the respect comment, b/c from what ive researched very few atheists respect WLC. Other than quinton smith, ive yet to hear any1 say good things
And really look at the facts read all the posts and see who is uncivil, hostile, and crass when leaving comments. Scroll down and check it out. The atheists are arrogant cock suckers. And if great minds debate these things in the great universities of the world, than just know your not going to solve this shit on youtube. Its selfserving, atheists are assholes, waiting to throw around a bunch of big words to get a boner over how smart they think they sound
We should all stop commenting like anybodys points are taken, this is just internet trolling. Nobody here has a Phd like Craig, but somehow all you idiots watch and regurgitate what a few youtube videos say than act like you are smarter than dr. Craig. Even scholars that disagree with dr. Craig have respect for him.
Careful.. you would need to apply the same argument to Theists who insist they know better than the 99% of scientific PhD's on topics like Evolution, or risk being a flat-out shit-talking hypocrite.
"read all the posts and see who is uncivil, hostile, and crass"
The Space-Time Theorem of General Relativity clearly shows that space, time, and matter all had a concrete beginning at the Big bang in the form of a singularity, which is considered to be all of the universe. According to the available evidence today, could the cause have been a natural cause thats made of space, matter, energy etc.?
@BreakoutLuceal Well, let me say from the start that I don't feel obligated to affirm a position based on "avaibale evidence today." Insofar as I'm concerned, and insofar as I understand the science and philosophy of it, I am comfortable with the cause being stochastic.
There is, actually, no philosophical burden for a "first cause."
@BreakoutLuceal No, I said I don't feel obligated to have an answer. My answer is: the cause was stochastic. That's what the applicable science and philosophy inclines me to think at this point. if the information changes then my answer will change.
I don't feel a burden to be "right." Only people who think eternity depends on it would feel that burden.
@BreakoutLuceal The way you're using "fine-tuning" is different than how cosmologists use "fine-tuning." So, please name one that uses "fine-tuning" in the way you do.
@BreakoutLuceal: "The universe's fundamental constants of nature are inconceivably precise and calibrated to allow the existence of intelligent life."
Bullshit. This universe wasn't 'designed' for anything or by anything. Stop trying to connect the dots where there are no dots.
@BreakoutLuceal: No, it doesn't. Considering that we can barely survive on this tiny little speck of rock, to think that the universe was designed for us is incredibly stupid. If it's true, the designer must be an imbecile of unimaginable proportions.
@BreakoutLuceal: The universe wasn't designed, period. Not for us, and not for anything else. There is no designer, no Master Plan, no ultimate secret or special meaning to the universe.
I would like you to answer some questions for me, if you don't mind:
1. Based on our scientific understanding of singularities and logic itself , Do you accept that the big bang singularity could not of caused itself to expand?
As a purely stylistic concern, do you always talk with melodramatic pauses, Mr. Shatner?
To the content, all that's required of any good theory or explanation is that the explanans (1) be sound and that the inferences from them consistently imply the explananda (1). There is no requirement for explanans (2) upon those explanans (1) unless one aims to dispute one of the explanans (1). But maybe I take Carl Hempel too seriously.
when he says that you don't need an explaination of an explaination to know that an explaination is the best. he means that you do not need to know what created God, if you know that God created the universe. it is irrelevant. if you watch the whole video he gives an example. an achelologist does not need to know where the indean came from inorder to know that the indian made the arrow head...come on now THINK
... they still haven't explained anything about why the theory is true, or where it "comes from". But that's okay, since that isn't demanded in science. On this point, I really have to agree with WLC, but I realize that WLC is responding to Dawkins in a very dishonest way. Dawkins' point was that positing a god doesn't "explain" anything, it doesn't make any predictions, and it doesn't yield any observable phenomena, which is absolutely true.
I would like you to answer some questions for me, if you don't mind:
1. Based on our scientific understanding of singularities and logic itself , Do you accept that the big bang singularity could not of caused itself to expand?
Firstly, I think WLC is a dishonest twat, but I disagree with you in this video, James. We know that gravity accounts for planetary orbits, why masses fall to the ground on earth, etc... But we cannot explain why gravity "is" or where it "comes from". We just have to take it as a brute fact.
In your video you imply that you're somehow explaining a theory by choosing one of the competing models over the other. But this isn't true. Once scientists select a single theory, they still ...
One question has been bugging me since I first heard this argument, and I know nothing of how science is done and am probably embarrassing myself just asking it but... isn't science basically NEVER satisfied with an answer, infinite regress be damned?
I mean, when we find out how x works and it's because of y, doesn't science then ask the question of how y works to make x work?
@projectlevydelta And you don't need an explanation of the explanation? Are you KIDDING ME!? First we thought god made us sick, then we discovered that it was bacteria that made us sick, then, based on this, we discovered how to combat many of those bacteria, we even forced one to EXTINCTION!
Saying we don't need to explain explanations is like saying that god makes us sick and explaining why is pointless! Imagine if we had not done the science! We would still die at age 20-25 of poor health!
@projectlevydelta Oh Sure! Depending on the religion, slavery is condoned, genital mutilation of children, genocide.
The list is long, so don't you dare to suggest that "all Religion does is say everything int he world is made by God." God induces his rules, rules made by man who saw religion as a source of power, if you have something that cannot be argued or debated, and it offers you power over others, especially when no one can prove otherwise, you have set yourself up fairly good, no?
@projectlevydelta /sigh at the narrow mind, we figure out how wind works, we know how it is created, how it "dissapears" and what use it has, and nowhere in there is there an empty slot where a an omnipotent fatherfigure is remotely needed.
Let's say the unlikely day comes, when we have figured it all out, and not a single mention of god is necessary, what would you do then? What would you hide behind?
@projectlevydelta That wasn't even the point of the scenario. You said the invisible man "telling someone he did it" was a valid way to find truth, and my point was, it's impossible to tell the difference between what one person claims the invisible man in their head (god) tells them, and what another person claims the invisible man in their head (god) tells them, which may be completely different. What's the difference between a crazy person and a religious person hearing voices in their heads?
Can we agree that humanity has NEVER found a car made by nature?
Can we agree that what we know about nature makes it an impossibility?
Can we agree that in order for us to change our logical assumption that this doesn't happen we would have to gather empirical evidence to the contrary?
Until we do - I stick with experience and what we know about nature and it's possibilities.
All Craig is saying is that if we found machines on the other side of the moon that we know didn't come from earth, we wouldn't have to know anything at all about the aliens who deposited those machines there, to know that it was the best explanation for how they got there. And in fact, it's the very thing evolutionists say when you ask where life begin. "We don't know, and we don't need to know."
@WirtyDord You may not need an explanation right now to be able to work with what you've got, but that work will increase your knowledge and lead you closer and closer to an explanation for the explanation.
Research of the moon-machinery would give us insight into who made it thereby fueling our curiosity and eventually lead to us try to actually locate whoever made it - if at all possible.
So yes, we eventually need an explanation for the explanation.
@projectlevydelta "The invisible man did it and told someone they did it.. I think that is a viable excuse for him doing it. Just because he didn't tell you just means he doesn't like you."
See that's a statement which is totally and completely unscientific and therefore shouldn't be part of any scientific discussion since it
1. cannot be proven or testet
2. doesn't even begin to explain how anything works
It belongs in a theological discussion and should stay there.
@projectlevydelta In science God doesn't enter the equation for or against.
Science doesn't deal with the subject of proving or disproving God.
Science simply tries to find - through testable evidence - explanations for how things work in the real world.
What people like Craig and creationists are doing is trying to exchange the scientific method with supernatural non-explanation through religious dogma.
@projectlevydelta find me the human skeleton that predates the dinosaurs, then. and there's plenty of evidence that supports man coming after the dinosaurs.
there's mountains of evidence to support evolution. there's little if any to support creationism. it's ironic you're the one talking about limited knowledge. all creationism does is make baseless assertions.
in calling evolution a religion, you make it clear you do not understand either term, despite being religious yourself.
@projectlevydelta where did all the water come from? the earth doesn't have near enough in all its oceans, or the vapor in its atmosphere, or the ice on the poles, to flood the planet. also, we know the dimensions of the boat, and it is not possible to fit all those animals on there, never mind their food or waste products.
you believe the noah's ark story based on faith and nothing else.
Yeah but you cut out Craig’s justification for his points, which is intellectually dishonest and misleading. I have heard the entire video and he is convincing. Anyone one can attack half developed thoughts, cause that’s all you are doing
@doaftheloaf that,is irrelevant whether you believe that or not, bottom line is when you attempt to refute a claim you address the claim in its entirety, to post a video refuting half developed points is intellectually dishonest and deceptive
Evidence for an explantion makes perfect sense to me. Equating an explanation with design/designer though is where I see the fallacy. Saying the reason for complex life is due to a designer is actually an argument, or a claim. It's not an explanation, in terms of critical thinking. I think it would have been better for W.L. Craig to just have us marvel at the concept of an infinite/eternal creator with no beginning and no end, and then talk about humility.
Science have, like all other human discourse, agree on some basic assumption, like we exist, a material world, natural laws that are observable and demonstrable.
We can't move forward, or come to any conclusion without first agreeing on some fundamental principles.
Beyond that, we do not have to compromise or make further assumption that are unnecessary. If we agree to God doesn't require explanation, everything else that we don't understand can be blamed on God too.
god just isn't an EXPLANATION for anything--by any reasonable use of the word "explanation." It's always been that way. One reason is that god can ALWAYS be used as an explanation for ANYTHING--and, paradoxically, something that can be used that way actually offers no INFORMATION or UNDERSTANDING (unless you wish to say it offers ALL information and understanding).
phi223 wrote: The fundamental point being lost is that when you present your "evidence" to prove that your hypothesis is correct, you then are required to find the evidence to prove your "evidence" which proves your theory and so on and so on. His point is not that you should not bring evidence to bear, but you don't need evidence for your evidence, for your evidence so on and so on.
He had an excellent point and should not have been spammed.
the idea behind deductive reasoning and the scientific method, scrutiny and "cold" logic is precisely to separate personal viewpoints from observations. THAT's the scientific method. that's why an observation when analysed by a methodology results in the EXACT same conclusions by anyone who follows the method. if not, there's a problem to review.
"objectivity" is illusory, i agree. that's why i am always writing: EVERYTHING is subjective. objectivity is agreed upon.
@transtlantic I understand that science, when done properly is as close to objective as it gets. However there are a lot of "scientific" conclusions that are only reached because
they are built on a philosophical foundation. if the reviewer and the researcher share
the same philosophical assumption (materialism for example) then any possible non
materialistic interpretation is ignored by definition. Now you won't see this as a problem because the bias favors your worldview.
name one "scientific conclusion" that was only reached because it was built on a philosophical foundation?
possible non materialistic interpretation? LOL... show me a valid explanation of that type. for any observed phenomena. saying: "God did it" or "Unicorns did it", is not an explanation. it's an assumption.
bias? lol... considering that my "bias" cures diseases, builds bridges and puts man in space...
while yours promotes opression and religious nonsense... uhm....
i already asked you to provide any sort of non-materialistic observation (perceived) that has any sort of evidence (any at all) that validates your position. up till now you provided nothing.
to assume we don't require an explanation is to present a position of a fool. an idiotic fuck who believes in whatever snake oil someone tells him to buy. i reject such position and therefore i don't believe in buy bull induced shit like god, spirits and zombie jesus, homeoquackery and other related crap that are at the same exact level: product of imagination, magical thinking.
i do have sufficient evidence to point out phi223 assumptions.
@transtlantic presenting the mature argument again I see. No one said no explanation was required. But an endless regress of explaning the explanation is the height of absurdity and THAT is the point made by phi223 AND Dr.Craig.
but i was not doing any regress of explaining the explanation. where did i do that?
you do say "no explanation required". everytime you shout: "God did it" or "i believe in creationism", those are not explanation, those are bullshit uneducated ignorant assumptions.
craig's and phi223 points are retarded. they keep forgetting that WE SEE evolution, WE SEE no design, WE SEE no creator, WE SEE no creation, WE SEE no ID, no IC, etc etc
"você está cheio de me&%a", not "da me$#a". you should try google translator, is so much better.
Plus... that expression "you are full of shit", doesn't have any...well... context of meaning as an insult. it's actually used to adress matter of constipation.
what you presented IS anedoctal crap. any person with a brain would realize the STUPIDITY of using anedoctal claims as statements of fact.
when you have EVIDENCE that they actually experienced NDEs, feel free to present it.
sure: all of their claims are anedoctal. scrutiny of their experiences provide no clear evidence that they had any sort of NDEs, in fact some of the scientists you named explain how NDEs are phenomena that result from lack of oxygen in the brain where hallucinations occur. one just has to read the papers and notice how anedoctal all of the claims are.
i exclude anedoctal evidence. just like any other scientist does.
my position is precisely according to the scientific method.
working out? well...as long as uneducated fucks like you waste all of your time taking notice of my insults and never adressing any of my points... all i have to say is: i rest my case.
you have jack shit, nothing at all supporting any of your religious nonsense.
NDEs? i asked for evidence you showed jack nothing.
immaterial? i asked for evidence (whatever you had) and you showed jack nothing.
by calling you a quack, i name you a moron who buys bullshit crap like: homeopathy or believes in crap like prayer healing and you promote it. which you do.
plenty experience with disreputable doctors? i have debunked some, yes.
i do think you are like a kid. afterall kids do believe in imaginary friends, ghosts, spirits and other fantasy nonsense. you being just like a kid.
@transtlantic So you claim to be able to function at a college level in English, even though there is ample evidence to the contrary here. You are making up your own definitions for words. According to you the word
"immaterial" means "fantasy", according to what dictionary?
Now you say that "god" is synonymous with "existance"? This is more contrary evidence against your functoning at a college level in English.
ofc i concede you have a superior skill in terms of the english language. afterall, it's your native language. i would require years of permanent contact with an english culture in order to attain a unique level of language use.
the phi223 point is entirely not correct. it's obvious most of you uneducated cretard dumbfucks ignore what is the epistemological methodology of the VAST majority of scientists, the so called: scientific method.
there are no limits to what can be proved conclusively. that's an a priori assumption that is part of the cosmological argument. debunked by Hume. you can't assume ANYTHING before the observation, before the evidence, before the analysis, as granted. there are no limitations, if there are, that's part of the discussion, not the introduction. that's how deduction works.
The existance of ANYTHING, be it immaterial, spiritual, or even god are withing the power of the human hands.
so...when your retarded uneducated ass finaly decides to stop writing bullshit and actually present some evidence for the spiritual feel free to do so. till then i'll just be a grown up and understand that Santa Claus/Unicorns/spirits/OBE(NDEs)/God do not exist.
so...if i defend your right to belive. and you opress other's beliefs, you want to FORCE women to have FORCED pregnancies, you want to FORCE gay people to not be together, you want to OPRESS the liberty to be married,...
so... how are you more "morally/ethically" (two different things, actually) "superior"?
how is a theist who wants to opress the right for a homosexual to serve his country, to fight for his country, to give his life for his country,..."morally superior"?
thank "god" that Obama finaly started with a thing that will stop the nonsense lived in the army.
Science can only operate within a narrow "method" that limits its ability to answer some questions. When science steps outside of those confines to posit "answers" that cannot be scientifically verified it violates credibility. "Science" posits that evolution is the acceptable "theory" for the existence of life, but the SCIENTIFIC METHOD cannot explain the "explanation" but yet we are told to believe it anyway. Science can't go back and observe the begining of life, but we are told to believe.
The fundamental point being lost is that when you present your "evidence" to prove that your hypothesis is correct, you then are required to find the evidence to prove your "evidence" which proves your theory and so on and so on. His point is not that you should not bring evidence to bear, but you don't need evidence for your evidence, for your evidence so on and so on.
Theists fail to realise that it is very difficult, almost to the point of impossibility, to serve up evidence in support of the existence of a First Cause, namely, God. Just about every argument formulated in their favour has been refuted or proven to be fallacious.
It is an argument, a very good one. Think about explaining something to your 10 year old child. And in turn your child asks "why". No matter what answer you give your child he or she can continually as 'why' to every answer you come up with. Infinitely.
@SmalltimR the only thing is that this is not what Dawkins says in his book. Craig (and you) raise such a silly objection, that you're a just moron if you think Dawkins couldn't think of it, and needed an evangelical wing-nut like Lame to point it out.
read the God Delusion and try to understand the argument, instead of listening to Craig's bullshit
@TruthWatch really? and where in the "God Delusion" does Dawkins deny that in order to recognize an explanation as the best you don't need an explanation of the explanation? Nowhere. What Dawkins says is that, given the presupposition of the argument, i.e. complexity needs an explanation due of it's improbability, to posit an even more complex designer is not to give answer, but to shoot yourself in the foot: now you have to explain the complex (hense improbable) designer
@TruthWatch "inferring a designer requires the further explanation of the designer"
bc the inferrence is made based on the assumption that the complexity of the Universe is improbable and needs an explanation. But the complexity of the designer would also be improbable, and in need of an explanation.
The suggestion that an all-powerful designer, capabale of doing anything logically possible, is simpler than a bacteria that is capable of little more than growing and reproducing, is ludicrous
This is what Craig actually says about this: " Dawkins' fundamental mistake lies in his assumption that a divine designer is an entity comparable in complexity to the universe. As an unembodied mind, God is a remarkably simple entity. As a non-physical entity, a mind is not composed of parts, and its salient properties, like self-consciousness, rationality, and volition, are essential to it."
Nice try, but the head fake with comparing the complexity of God to bacteria is what is ludicrous.
@TruthWatch "As a non-physical entity, a mind is not composed of parts, and its salient properties, like self-consciousness, rationality, and volition, are essential to it."
all these properties are the result of neural interactions. as is the mind itself. Virtually all neuro-scientists say that, and they are the specialists in this area. Craig is a mere layman. and he'd be laughed off as totally ignorant if he said that to a neuroscientist.
@AgeOfReasonXXI Not so fast. There are neuro scientists who do not
presuppose materialist dogma like you just did.
What pray tell are your qualifications to make such a claim?
Do those neuro scientist's ACTUALLY say that the properties of the mind are CAUSED by the firing of neurons, or simply that neuron activity is detected
in various parts of the brain during its operations? (Not the same thing)
@TruthWatch "Do those neuro scientist's ACTUALLY say that the properties of the mind are CAUSED by the firing of neurons"
yes, they do. virtually all of them. and no, they don't presuppose materialism. it's their conclusion. only theistic philosophers still cling to dualism. no one asks for their opinion on the subject, though.
"nothing more than"
that just shows your bias. what does it matter whether the mind is a product of the brain or not? it doesn't make it ay less fascinating, right?
@AgeOfReasonXXI Actually the majority of them do presuppose philosophical
materialism. If you doubt this read the book "The Spiritual Brain" by Mario Beauregard. It deals rather nicely with this issue.
You say "only theistic philosopher's still cling to dualism" LOL! You mean the large majortiy of the earth's population? Sorry its the materialist's who need to prove their case to overide millenia of philosophical thought to the contrary.
@TruthWatch you seem unable to grasp the simple fact that, if it requires stunningly complex arrangemnts of parts in order for an entity to be capable of performing simple funcions like growing and reproducing , to suggest that an entity capable of thinking, reasoning, etc., requires no parts AT ALL, is insane. maybe that's why every discovery we've made concering the workings of the mind points to interactions between the components of the extreemely complex physical system we call the brain
@AgeOfReasonXXI It's not a failure to grasp the concept, simply a failure to be convinced that the physical world is all there is. One must make just that
presupposition for the idea that a mind can be immaterial to be "insane" as you suggest. The more radical idea at work here is the suggestion that human beings
are nothing more than the sum of their electrochemical processes.
This something no one but die hard materialists believe. And I say "believe"
what you are saying is that you deliberately choose to ignore what is known in order to pursue a belief based solely in your imaginarium, magic thinking, delusional thinking. funny.
"a mind can be immaterial", but where's the evidence for that?
all that we know is that human beings (and all the other animals) are really the sum of...well...matter.
electrochemical processs? lol... you don't even know what that is, retard
cannot prove? sure i can: i can slap you and you'll feel it
@transtlantic Don't uoi ever get tired of using thr juvenile tactic of namecalling.
No wonder people don't believe you are a doctor, do you call your religious patients "retards"? On what do you base your statement that I do not know what electro chemical processes are, your mythical masters degree, or did one of the dwarf orcs in your head tell you that?
Maybe all you know is that human beings (and all the other animals) are really the sum of ...matter." But how can you speak for all?
speak for all? considering that i am far more educated and qualified than you regarding matters of science, i do speak for what is known. while you speak for those that are uneducated and ignorant.
i do know who wrote the quote, obviously. I also read the "Descartes' error", a book written by one of the leading researchers on neurobiology - Dr António Damásio (he did his med school in the same place i did).
@transtlantic Yes, yes were all really impressed, no doubt you were head of your class at Miskatonic University. (literary reference) You'll no doubt pretend you knew its source, but you will in fact go google it and then come back here and lie.
You have to keep up the pretense that you are better educated than
all of us poor benighted souls who wallow in our superstition.
So youare in fact a dualist? my bad. I assumed that your philosophy was at least consistant with your words
my university: University of Lisbon. i also spent two years at University of Oporto.
very real places, dumbass.
i did have to google that place, i had an idea of the name but couldn't recall it. childish books of Horror already are past to me. dumbwit. i prefer more adult literature.
I am better educated than you. you do keep trying to promote an argument of ad hominem against me, but that just shows how scared you are. loser.
there are limits? you mean... i put into question your faith? poor me.
i am showing my vast intelect. i am debunking all of your crap. that's why you now resort to ad hominem. you have nothing else to do.
You the one who talked about the placebo effect. such effect doesn't CURE anything. it has a mild effect in a few selected cases where it reduces symptoms, never signs directly related to the cause of disease.
"really are a genuis"? lol...the humour. you being corrected by me. AH
a dualist? not at all. i am not a dualist. how could i possibly give you that impression?
"tranny"? ah... typical christian loser discrimination. no surprise there. and nope, i am not a transexual.
I have witness the placebo effect. but the placebo effect does not cure pneumonia, it may reduce symptoms, but not signs, heck...it even might not appear (which is usually the VAST majority of the cases).
Patients do believe they will get better under my care, that's why they seek an MD.
@transtlantic I don't believe anyone has suggested that the placebo effect would cure pneumonia, so saying that does not help you. You really don't get the humor here, that's okay, well just blame the language barrier,because we KNOW that you really are a genuis.
my "buddy" is one of the leading researchers on human neurobiology.
ergo his books, ideas and research being great paradigm changes.
he has evidence that mind is produced by the brain. the brain is stimulated by the environment "helping" to produce what we call our personalities, mind.
you don't know where is Lisbon? astonishing. one of the leading capitals of the world for more than 2 centuries in the past.
i don't give a flying fuck if you are a man of faith in fantasy.
@transtlantic Though a brilliant young doctor, transatlantic (known as tranny is his
social circle) was puzzled why none his patients ever exibited what the other doctors
called "the placebo effect". One day he enquired of one of the nurses and she told him the plain unvarnished truth "none of your patients ever actually BELIEVE that they will getter better under your care".
"But I tell them the truth!" he stammered.
"Hey you asked" she said and returned to her work.
@transtlantic Well of COURSE it's horse shit you poor humorless portugese physician.
I have no idea who "Crazy Icke" is. Is he an imaginary friend of yours?
Don't you appreciate the irony of complaining about "ad hominem" while simutaneously calling me names like nutjob, retarded fuckwit, dumbwit,dumbass,loser and (the pièce de résistance) christian loser. I'm sure you see this as a valid debate strategy but everyone else here sees it for what it is: pathetic and immature. So please continue!
"Portugese"? again? it's the second time you wrote it, so it's not a mispelling. It's Portuguese, you ignoramus. damn... you really are a dumbwit.
forget about Crazy Icke, better if you don't become aware of that lunatic. your delusional thinking doesn't require more stimulus.
calling you names is a statement of fact: you are a nutjob, dumb, uneducated, a dumbass, and so stupid and so ignorant that you are probably mentally challenged.
@transtlantic Thank you for confirming that Portugal is where we would put the tube when europe gets an enema. Yes, I do have a slight visual impairment, but better that than your mental one.
So shall I find all of your grammar errors now or are you going to be a dick every time I make a minor typing error?
lol...i was able to notice your visual impairment.
lol...
"minor typing error"? why repeat over and over "minot typing error"? you either ignore how to write those words or you have a disorder that makes you to misspell some words.
but why the flame wards?
have you shown evidence for the immaterial yet? nope.
@transtlantic You still don't get it do you? Only material things are visible. That means the immaterial are NOT visible. So looking in the telescope or microscope for things that are not visible is just plain stupid. Compreenda ainda, parvo?
so what you are saying is that there is a unicorn living inside your ass. amazing story.
if the "immaterial" is not visible. how the fuck do you know it exists? you are ASSUMING there is "immaterial" things, like fairies, gods and spirits. meaning: they do not exist, and yet you ASSUME they do. perfect example of delusion.
"compreenda ainda"? you probably wanted to write: Compreendes agora, parvo?
damn...i am correcting you in two different languages now.
@transtlantic The existence of the immaterial is a debateable point. The meaning of the word "immarerial" is not. I do hope you can see the difference. You are the same person who made up the word "debunkery" though, so maybe you don't.
Another problem here is that you think that "belief" and "delusion" mean the same thing too, but they don't. I believe in God based on the evidence I have been presented with and my own personal experience. I don't pretend that any of that is empirical.
read the chapter on delusion at the DSM-IV. the sole reason your belief is not considered as a delusion it's because it's included in a set of social environment where more share the same belief, your belief doesn't afffect your personal, family and social life, etc. meaning: religious belief is excluded from the delusion category by deliberate set of traits imposed. in the TRUE neurobiological sense: religious belief IS a delusion
i can actually empirically prove your belief false
This has been flagged as spam show
If you know anyone who's been falsely DMCA'd by William Lane Craig collaborator John Leonard, otherwise known as drcraigvideos, please contact @thunderf00t.
YOURINQUIRER 1 month ago in playlist William Lane Craig
The name calling was in reply to atheists who call people names for even raising questions to evolution, It was ambiguous and wasn't directed towards one person, ha its funny you guys try to take the high ground now
squareboys1 1 month ago
I didn't try to combat scientists with phd's that support evolution or to support scientists with phd's that support intelligent design, so im not a hypocrite yo, nice try and atheists are arrogant cocksuckers, just like you trying to talk shit about me being a hypocrite when I didn't try to act like I am smarter than a phd evolutionary scientist, you beautifully illustrated my point good sir
squareboys1 1 month ago
@squareboys1 yes, this is a great example of a civil post. Good job!
lordrazr 2 months ago
@squareboys1 its funny u mention that, b/c none of craigs arguments are his. theyre all regurgitations of century old arguments. Id need to see citation on the respect comment, b/c from what ive researched very few atheists respect WLC. Other than quinton smith, ive yet to hear any1 say good things
lordrazr 2 months ago
And really look at the facts read all the posts and see who is uncivil, hostile, and crass when leaving comments. Scroll down and check it out. The atheists are arrogant cock suckers. And if great minds debate these things in the great universities of the world, than just know your not going to solve this shit on youtube. Its selfserving, atheists are assholes, waiting to throw around a bunch of big words to get a boner over how smart they think they sound
squareboys1 2 months ago
We should all stop commenting like anybodys points are taken, this is just internet trolling. Nobody here has a Phd like Craig, but somehow all you idiots watch and regurgitate what a few youtube videos say than act like you are smarter than dr. Craig. Even scholars that disagree with dr. Craig have respect for him.
squareboys1 2 months ago
@squareboys1 ""Nobody here has a Phd like Craig"
Careful.. you would need to apply the same argument to Theists who insist they know better than the 99% of scientific PhD's on topics like Evolution, or risk being a flat-out shit-talking hypocrite.
"read all the posts and see who is uncivil, hostile, and crass"
"atheists are arrogant cock suckers"
Ooohhhhhhhh too late.
Murchad99 1 month ago
The Space-Time Theorem of General Relativity clearly shows that space, time, and matter all had a concrete beginning at the Big bang in the form of a singularity, which is considered to be all of the universe. According to the available evidence today, could the cause have been a natural cause thats made of space, matter, energy etc.?
BreakoutLuceal 5 months ago
@BreakoutLuceal Well, let me say from the start that I don't feel obligated to affirm a position based on "avaibale evidence today." Insofar as I'm concerned, and insofar as I understand the science and philosophy of it, I am comfortable with the cause being stochastic.
There is, actually, no philosophical burden for a "first cause."
DasAmericanAtheist 5 months ago
@DasAmericanAtheist
so your answer is that you do not know what the cause could be?
BreakoutLuceal 5 months ago
@BreakoutLuceal No, I said I don't feel obligated to have an answer. My answer is: the cause was stochastic. That's what the applicable science and philosophy inclines me to think at this point. if the information changes then my answer will change.
I don't feel a burden to be "right." Only people who think eternity depends on it would feel that burden.
DasAmericanAtheist 5 months ago
@DasAmericanAtheist The universe has inconceivably fine-tuned laws that allows us to continue to existence in this universe, correct?
BreakoutLuceal 5 months ago
@BreakoutLuceal No.
DasAmericanAtheist 5 months ago
@DasAmericanAtheist
So we don't exist?
BreakoutLuceal 5 months ago
@BreakoutLuceal Oh we exist. I just don't accept your assertion. "Fine-tuning" is a misuse of probability.
DasAmericanAtheist 5 months ago
@DasAmericanAtheist
I am not sure what you mean because cosmologists do use the word "fine-tuning" to describe the nature of the universe.
BreakoutLuceal 5 months ago
@BreakoutLuceal The way you're using "fine-tuning" is different than how cosmologists use "fine-tuning." So, please name one that uses "fine-tuning" in the way you do.
DasAmericanAtheist 5 months ago
@DasAmericanAtheist
Oh ok, so you are rejecting my claim as a matter of semantics. does this sound better:
"The universe's fundamental constants of nature are inconceivably precise and calibrated to allow the existence of intelligent life."
BreakoutLuceal 5 months ago
@BreakoutLuceal: "The universe's fundamental constants of nature are inconceivably precise and calibrated to allow the existence of intelligent life."
Bullshit. This universe wasn't 'designed' for anything or by anything. Stop trying to connect the dots where there are no dots.
mikefromwa 2 months ago
@mikefromwa
NO NO NOOOO, I never said it was designed at all let alone for us. You are putting words in my mouth.
And you have made a number of assertions that you have yet to back up.
BreakoutLuceal 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BreakoutLuceal: "I never said it was designed at all let alone for us"
It doesn't matter- it wasn't "designed" at all.
"you have made a number of assertions that you have yet to back up."
So have you, such as that the universe was "designed". It wasn't, any more than an apple or a dog or a tornado was "designed".
mikefromwa 2 months ago
@BreakoutLuceal: No, it doesn't. Considering that we can barely survive on this tiny little speck of rock, to think that the universe was designed for us is incredibly stupid. If it's true, the designer must be an imbecile of unimaginable proportions.
mikefromwa 2 months ago
@mikefromwa
SO we are not intelligent life and we don't exist. You obviously did not carefully read my comments. I never said it was designed for us.
BreakoutLuceal 2 months ago
@BreakoutLuceal: The universe wasn't designed, period. Not for us, and not for anything else. There is no designer, no Master Plan, no ultimate secret or special meaning to the universe.
mikefromwa 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DasAmericanAtheist
Oh ok, so you are rejecting my claim as a matter of semantics. does this sound better:
"The universe's fundamental constants of nature are inconceivably precise and calibrated to allow the existence of intelligent life."
BreakoutLuceal 5 months ago
I would like you to answer some questions for me, if you don't mind:
1. Based on our scientific understanding of singularities and logic itself , Do you accept that the big bang singularity could not of caused itself to expand?
BreakoutLuceal 5 months ago
@BreakoutLuceal No, I do not accept that.
DasAmericanAtheist 5 months ago
@DasAmericanAtheist
2. Do you accept that there is a cause for the singularity to expand?
BreakoutLuceal 5 months ago
@BreakoutLuceal Yes.
DasAmericanAtheist 5 months ago
As a purely stylistic concern, do you always talk with melodramatic pauses, Mr. Shatner?
To the content, all that's required of any good theory or explanation is that the explanans (1) be sound and that the inferences from them consistently imply the explananda (1). There is no requirement for explanans (2) upon those explanans (1) unless one aims to dispute one of the explanans (1). But maybe I take Carl Hempel too seriously.
theyangist 5 months ago
when he says that you don't need an explaination of an explaination to know that an explaination is the best. he means that you do not need to know what created God, if you know that God created the universe. it is irrelevant. if you watch the whole video he gives an example. an achelologist does not need to know where the indean came from inorder to know that the indian made the arrow head...come on now THINK
lilrat489 6 months ago
... they still haven't explained anything about why the theory is true, or where it "comes from". But that's okay, since that isn't demanded in science. On this point, I really have to agree with WLC, but I realize that WLC is responding to Dawkins in a very dishonest way. Dawkins' point was that positing a god doesn't "explain" anything, it doesn't make any predictions, and it doesn't yield any observable phenomena, which is absolutely true.
wownov83 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wownov83
I would like you to answer some questions for me, if you don't mind:
1. Based on our scientific understanding of singularities and logic itself , Do you accept that the big bang singularity could not of caused itself to expand?
BreakoutLuceal 5 months ago
Firstly, I think WLC is a dishonest twat, but I disagree with you in this video, James. We know that gravity accounts for planetary orbits, why masses fall to the ground on earth, etc... But we cannot explain why gravity "is" or where it "comes from". We just have to take it as a brute fact.
In your video you imply that you're somehow explaining a theory by choosing one of the competing models over the other. But this isn't true. Once scientists select a single theory, they still ...
wownov83 7 months ago
One question has been bugging me since I first heard this argument, and I know nothing of how science is done and am probably embarrassing myself just asking it but... isn't science basically NEVER satisfied with an answer, infinite regress be damned?
I mean, when we find out how x works and it's because of y, doesn't science then ask the question of how y works to make x work?
Paur 7 months ago
@projectlevydelta And you don't need an explanation of the explanation? Are you KIDDING ME!? First we thought god made us sick, then we discovered that it was bacteria that made us sick, then, based on this, we discovered how to combat many of those bacteria, we even forced one to EXTINCTION!
Saying we don't need to explain explanations is like saying that god makes us sick and explaining why is pointless! Imagine if we had not done the science! We would still die at age 20-25 of poor health!
Zhippy 8 months ago 2
@projectlevydelta Oh Sure! Depending on the religion, slavery is condoned, genital mutilation of children, genocide.
The list is long, so don't you dare to suggest that "all Religion does is say everything int he world is made by God." God induces his rules, rules made by man who saw religion as a source of power, if you have something that cannot be argued or debated, and it offers you power over others, especially when no one can prove otherwise, you have set yourself up fairly good, no?
Zhippy 8 months ago
@projectlevydelta With every new scientific breakthrough comes more and more hints and evidence against god's presence.
We are putting together a puzzle, and every piece we put into the puzzle does not require a god for it to fit.
Science is perhaps not intentionally made, or done rather, to disprove god, but that certainly is part of it's results.
Zhippy 8 months ago
@projectlevydelta /sigh at the narrow mind, we figure out how wind works, we know how it is created, how it "dissapears" and what use it has, and nowhere in there is there an empty slot where a an omnipotent fatherfigure is remotely needed.
Let's say the unlikely day comes, when we have figured it all out, and not a single mention of god is necessary, what would you do then? What would you hide behind?
Zhippy 8 months ago
@projectlevydelta That wasn't even the point of the scenario. You said the invisible man "telling someone he did it" was a valid way to find truth, and my point was, it's impossible to tell the difference between what one person claims the invisible man in their head (god) tells them, and what another person claims the invisible man in their head (god) tells them, which may be completely different. What's the difference between a crazy person and a religious person hearing voices in their heads?
mjvoce 8 months ago
@projectlevydelta Wow, that is a rather strange argument.
I'm talking about experience.
Can we agree that humanity has NEVER found a car made by nature?
Can we agree that what we know about nature makes it an impossibility?
Can we agree that in order for us to change our logical assumption that this doesn't happen we would have to gather empirical evidence to the contrary?
Until we do - I stick with experience and what we know about nature and it's possibilities.
But hey, that's just me.
auritone 8 months ago
All Craig is saying is that if we found machines on the other side of the moon that we know didn't come from earth, we wouldn't have to know anything at all about the aliens who deposited those machines there, to know that it was the best explanation for how they got there. And in fact, it's the very thing evolutionists say when you ask where life begin. "We don't know, and we don't need to know."
WirtyDord 8 months ago
@WirtyDord You may not need an explanation right now to be able to work with what you've got, but that work will increase your knowledge and lead you closer and closer to an explanation for the explanation.
Research of the moon-machinery would give us insight into who made it thereby fueling our curiosity and eventually lead to us try to actually locate whoever made it - if at all possible.
So yes, we eventually need an explanation for the explanation.
auritone 8 months ago
@projectlevydelta "The invisible man did it and told someone they did it.. I think that is a viable excuse for him doing it. Just because he didn't tell you just means he doesn't like you."
See that's a statement which is totally and completely unscientific and therefore shouldn't be part of any scientific discussion since it
1. cannot be proven or testet
2. doesn't even begin to explain how anything works
It belongs in a theological discussion and should stay there.
auritone 8 months ago
@projectlevydelta In science God doesn't enter the equation for or against.
Science doesn't deal with the subject of proving or disproving God.
Science simply tries to find - through testable evidence - explanations for how things work in the real world.
What people like Craig and creationists are doing is trying to exchange the scientific method with supernatural non-explanation through religious dogma.
Science and religion should be kept seperate!
Always!
auritone 8 months ago
@projectlevydelta find me the human skeleton that predates the dinosaurs, then. and there's plenty of evidence that supports man coming after the dinosaurs.
there's mountains of evidence to support evolution. there's little if any to support creationism. it's ironic you're the one talking about limited knowledge. all creationism does is make baseless assertions.
in calling evolution a religion, you make it clear you do not understand either term, despite being religious yourself.
doaftheloaf 8 months ago
@projectlevydelta where did all the water come from? the earth doesn't have near enough in all its oceans, or the vapor in its atmosphere, or the ice on the poles, to flood the planet. also, we know the dimensions of the boat, and it is not possible to fit all those animals on there, never mind their food or waste products.
you believe the noah's ark story based on faith and nothing else.
doaftheloaf 8 months ago
Yeah but you cut out Craig’s justification for his points, which is intellectually dishonest and misleading. I have heard the entire video and he is convincing. Anyone one can attack half developed thoughts, cause that’s all you are doing
jmanexpress 9 months ago
@jmanexpress most of craig's thoughts are half-developed even when he states them in full.
doaftheloaf 8 months ago
@doaftheloaf that,is irrelevant whether you believe that or not, bottom line is when you attempt to refute a claim you address the claim in its entirety, to post a video refuting half developed points is intellectually dishonest and deceptive
jmanexpress 8 months ago
@jmanexpress i agree with that. and there are people on both sides doing this very thing quite often. including craig himself.
doaftheloaf 8 months ago
@doaftheloaf and i would be more than happy to point that out to my fellow Christians who are guilty of doing the same
jmanexpress 8 months ago
Evidence for an explantion makes perfect sense to me. Equating an explanation with design/designer though is where I see the fallacy. Saying the reason for complex life is due to a designer is actually an argument, or a claim. It's not an explanation, in terms of critical thinking. I think it would have been better for W.L. Craig to just have us marvel at the concept of an infinite/eternal creator with no beginning and no end, and then talk about humility.
XitemeM 9 months ago
That means your explanation isn't the best.
indukayam 9 months ago
bro? WL just owned you.... your response to his argument affirms his argument as true,
your trying to explain his argument, which means, your trying to explain the explanation..... not a good video
Gubbible 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Gubbible "your trying to explain his argument, which means, your trying to explain the explanation..... not a good video"
would you expect anything different from someone who obviously (and correctly) refutes WLCs claim that explanations do not require an explanation??
scottpastry 9 months ago
well your explanation is not the best...
trickjacko 11 months ago
good vid
Cruzharo 11 months ago
Science have, like all other human discourse, agree on some basic assumption, like we exist, a material world, natural laws that are observable and demonstrable.
We can't move forward, or come to any conclusion without first agreeing on some fundamental principles.
Beyond that, we do not have to compromise or make further assumption that are unnecessary. If we agree to God doesn't require explanation, everything else that we don't understand can be blamed on God too.
wildreams 11 months ago
Craig has just an argument...Based on Philosofical Logical Deduction.Evidence?Apologists don't need those.
animaniaco 1 year ago
god just isn't an EXPLANATION for anything--by any reasonable use of the word "explanation." It's always been that way. One reason is that god can ALWAYS be used as an explanation for ANYTHING--and, paradoxically, something that can be used that way actually offers no INFORMATION or UNDERSTANDING (unless you wish to say it offers ALL information and understanding).
GetMeThere1 1 year ago
@DishrackDarwin
amazing how am i the one saying that i lied and not one single cretard notices it.
that says a lot about the intelligence of cretards! LOLOL
bunch of uneducated unqualified retards.
cya next Dover trial! LOLOL
transtlantic 1 year ago
@DishrackDarwin
immature? you stalk me everywhere and you believe in childish imaginary beings. just like a child does.
atheists inferior? they just happen to be the majority of science Nobel prize winners, thinkers and educated people.
poor me and my two decades of education. what do you have? oh right... you learned how to write, read and that's it.
reading the buy bull shit is so much easier than reading more books, right?
fuck off.
transtlantic 1 year ago
phi223 wrote: The fundamental point being lost is that when you present your "evidence" to prove that your hypothesis is correct, you then are required to find the evidence to prove your "evidence" which proves your theory and so on and so on. His point is not that you should not bring evidence to bear, but you don't need evidence for your evidence, for your evidence so on and so on.
He had an excellent point and should not have been spammed.
This one point that blows this vid away.
TruthWatch 1 year ago
@TruthWatch
coplicated stuff i am sure you don't understand aside.
phi223 forgot to point out that WE SEE gravity in action. therefore WE KNOW gravity, atoms, evolution, chaos, etc etc
ARE FACTS! HOW you interpret them all is the reall challenge.
no matter what hypothesis you propose, you'll always HAVE those observations.
creationism? not observed AT ALL! therefore "design, designers, ID, IC,..." ALL products of magical thinking.
now fuck off
transtlantic 1 year ago
@transtlantic Yes bit the point is we don't require an infinite regress of explanation for anything. To suggest we do is just sophomoric twaddle.
TruthWatch 1 year ago
@TruthWatch
the idea behind deductive reasoning and the scientific method, scrutiny and "cold" logic is precisely to separate personal viewpoints from observations. THAT's the scientific method. that's why an observation when analysed by a methodology results in the EXACT same conclusions by anyone who follows the method. if not, there's a problem to review.
"objectivity" is illusory, i agree. that's why i am always writing: EVERYTHING is subjective. objectivity is agreed upon.
transtlantic 1 year ago
@transtlantic I understand that science, when done properly is as close to objective as it gets. However there are a lot of "scientific" conclusions that are only reached because
they are built on a philosophical foundation. if the reviewer and the researcher share
the same philosophical assumption (materialism for example) then any possible non
materialistic interpretation is ignored by definition. Now you won't see this as a problem because the bias favors your worldview.
TruthWatch 1 year ago
@TruthWatch
name one "scientific conclusion" that was only reached because it was built on a philosophical foundation?
possible non materialistic interpretation? LOL... show me a valid explanation of that type. for any observed phenomena. saying: "God did it" or "Unicorns did it", is not an explanation. it's an assumption.
bias? lol... considering that my "bias" cures diseases, builds bridges and puts man in space...
while yours promotes opression and religious nonsense... uhm....
transtlantic 1 year ago
@TruthWatch
i already asked you to provide any sort of non-materialistic observation (perceived) that has any sort of evidence (any at all) that validates your position. up till now you provided nothing.
you are not very bright, are you?
transtlantic 1 year ago
@TruthWatch
and no, you do not understand science. that's why you believe in creationism.
shall i present the debunk of all the bullshit IDiocy institute crap that you posted before, again?
transtlantic 1 year ago
@TruthWatch
to assume we don't require an explanation is to present a position of a fool. an idiotic fuck who believes in whatever snake oil someone tells him to buy. i reject such position and therefore i don't believe in buy bull induced shit like god, spirits and zombie jesus, homeoquackery and other related crap that are at the same exact level: product of imagination, magical thinking.
i do have sufficient evidence to point out phi223 assumptions.
read Hume.
transtlantic 1 year ago
@transtlantic presenting the mature argument again I see. No one said no explanation was required. But an endless regress of explaning the explanation is the height of absurdity and THAT is the point made by phi223 AND Dr.Craig.
TruthWatch 1 year ago
@TruthWatch
but i was not doing any regress of explaining the explanation. where did i do that?
you do say "no explanation required". everytime you shout: "God did it" or "i believe in creationism", those are not explanation, those are bullshit uneducated ignorant assumptions.
craig's and phi223 points are retarded. they keep forgetting that WE SEE evolution, WE SEE no design, WE SEE no creator, WE SEE no creation, WE SEE no ID, no IC, etc etc
by "see" i mean "perceive", you idiot.
transtlantic 1 year ago
@TruthWatch
you keep not adressing my point regarding evidence for the immaterial.
you are full of shit.
transtlantic 1 year ago
@transtlantic Why bother when you keep will just call it all anecdotal crap? Neinte, você está cheio da merda. (I love babelfish)
TruthWatch 1 year ago
@TruthWatch
"você está cheio de me&%a", not "da me$#a". you should try google translator, is so much better.
Plus... that expression "you are full of shit", doesn't have any...well... context of meaning as an insult. it's actually used to adress matter of constipation.
what you presented IS anedoctal crap. any person with a brain would realize the STUPIDITY of using anedoctal claims as statements of fact.
when you have EVIDENCE that they actually experienced NDEs, feel free to present it.
transtlantic 1 year ago
@transtlantic When you have evidence that they did not experience NDE's
feel free to present that. You exclude evidence by definition and then complain that there
is no evidence. That is a self serving, intellectually dishonest position.
TruthWatch 1 year ago
@TruthWatch
sure: all of their claims are anedoctal. scrutiny of their experiences provide no clear evidence that they had any sort of NDEs, in fact some of the scientists you named explain how NDEs are phenomena that result from lack of oxygen in the brain where hallucinations occur. one just has to read the papers and notice how anedoctal all of the claims are.
i exclude anedoctal evidence. just like any other scientist does.
my position is precisely according to the scientific method.
transtlantic 1 year ago
@DishrackDarwin
not at all. where's the flaw?
transtlantic 1 year ago
@DishrackDarwin
yeah...i admit that you proved that santa and god are two different imaginary beings!
AHAHAHAHAH i was dead wrong! santa is not the creator! LOLOL
tell me more about the imaginary god? does he deliver presents like santa?
LOLOLOL
transtlantic 1 year ago
You know, doesn't science *thrive* off of infinite regress anyway?
Paur 1 year ago
@DishrackDarwin
if i have "no education", as you say...
why don't you prove it?
1) Evolution is an undeniable fact.
2) there's no evidence for ghosts
3) there's no evidence for God
4) "immaterial" is just another word for fantasy.
what did i said that is wrong? easy: nothing.
transtlantic 1 year ago
@transtlantic Let me guess, this is one of the people you pissed off with that incredible
idea to insult people? Hows that working out for you?
TruthWatch 1 year ago
@TruthWatch
working out? well...as long as uneducated fucks like you waste all of your time taking notice of my insults and never adressing any of my points... all i have to say is: i rest my case.
you have jack shit, nothing at all supporting any of your religious nonsense.
NDEs? i asked for evidence you showed jack nothing.
immaterial? i asked for evidence (whatever you had) and you showed jack nothing.
see? it's easy to debunk quacks like you.
now fuck off, kid.
transtlantic 1 year ago
@transtlantic Wow. No this doesn't take that much of my time, but dealing with
people like you is always amusing, especially when you mangle the english language and produce such hilarius results.
By calling me a "quack" you either think I'm a disreputable doctor or a duck.
I'm sure you have plenty of experience with the former and I don't want to know
what your connection with the latter is.
Then you turn around and call me "kid". So now you think am a young goat?
Check your meds.
TruthWatch 1 year ago
@TruthWatch
by calling you a quack, i name you a moron who buys bullshit crap like: homeopathy or believes in crap like prayer healing and you promote it. which you do.
plenty experience with disreputable doctors? i have debunked some, yes.
i do think you are like a kid. afterall kids do believe in imaginary friends, ghosts, spirits and other fantasy nonsense. you being just like a kid.
transtlantic 1 year ago
@transtlantic Sorry you don't get to make up your own meanings for words. This is just another example
of an arrogant ignorance on your part.
We'll just have to call you Humpty Dumpty when you make up your own definitions.
TruthWatch 1 year ago
@TruthWatch
what word did i "made up"? lol...
oh...right... you think that god means: "something that exists". sorry to inform you. it doesn't.
wanna know why? because god, in fact, doesn't exist.
live with it.
transtlantic 1 year ago
@transtlantic So you claim to be able to function at a college level in English, even though there is ample evidence to the contrary here. You are making up your own definitions for words. According to you the word
"immaterial" means "fantasy", according to what dictionary?
Now you say that "god" is synonymous with "existance"? This is more contrary evidence against your functoning at a college level in English.
TruthWatch 1 year ago
@DishrackDarwin
you are just pissed because someone with an education debunked your crap regarding your "imatterial" fairy Godmother!
LOLOL
transtlantic 1 year ago
watch?v=7R6aFsxalM8
worldwide knowledge that being a creationist is to have a serious mental disorder.
transtlantic 1 year ago
@transtlantic "Proof" from a cartoon? My evidence was better than this!
TruthWatch 1 year ago
@TruthWatch
ofc i concede you have a superior skill in terms of the english language. afterall, it's your native language. i would require years of permanent contact with an english culture in order to attain a unique level of language use.
the phi223 point is entirely not correct. it's obvious most of you uneducated cretard dumbfucks ignore what is the epistemological methodology of the VAST majority of scientists, the so called: scientific method.
he forgets what comes before the hypothesis
transtlantic 1 year ago
@transtlantic You don't have sufficient evidence to make a claim about what
phi223 forgets or does not forget.
TruthWatch 1 year ago
@TruthWatch
there are no limits to what can be proved conclusively. that's an a priori assumption that is part of the cosmological argument. debunked by Hume. you can't assume ANYTHING before the observation, before the evidence, before the analysis, as granted. there are no limitations, if there are, that's part of the discussion, not the introduction. that's how deduction works.
The existance of ANYTHING, be it immaterial, spiritual, or even god are withing the power of the human hands.
transtlantic 1 year ago
@TruthWatch
so...when your retarded uneducated ass finaly decides to stop writing bullshit and actually present some evidence for the spiritual feel free to do so. till then i'll just be a grown up and understand that Santa Claus/Unicorns/spirits/OBE(NDEs)/God do not exist.
now fuck off, till you get an education, loser.
transtlantic 1 year ago
@transtlantic
Thank you for proving that theists are morally/ethically superior.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid
how so? i defend with all my might the right for any human being to believe in whatever man made fantasy bullshit crap he wants to believe.
if someone threatens your religious bullshit religion, i will be the first to defend your rights.
if you want to believe in unicorns, so be it! if you want to believe in imaginary fairy Godmother, so be it!
it's a right you are entitled to have.
what i see is theists arguing that their stupid religion is better than the other stupid religion.
transtlantic 1 year ago
@RetSquid
so...if i defend your right to belive. and you opress other's beliefs, you want to FORCE women to have FORCED pregnancies, you want to FORCE gay people to not be together, you want to OPRESS the liberty to be married,...
so... how are you more "morally/ethically" (two different things, actually) "superior"?
you are a hypocrite.
transtlantic 1 year ago
@RetSquid
how is a theist who wants to opress the right for a homosexual to serve his country, to fight for his country, to give his life for his country,..."morally superior"?
thank "god" that Obama finaly started with a thing that will stop the nonsense lived in the army.
theists moraly superior? well, not you for sure.
transtlantic 1 year ago
Science can only operate within a narrow "method" that limits its ability to answer some questions. When science steps outside of those confines to posit "answers" that cannot be scientifically verified it violates credibility. "Science" posits that evolution is the acceptable "theory" for the existence of life, but the SCIENTIFIC METHOD cannot explain the "explanation" but yet we are told to believe it anyway. Science can't go back and observe the begining of life, but we are told to believe.
HMSRedbeard 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The fundamental point being lost is that when you present your "evidence" to prove that your hypothesis is correct, you then are required to find the evidence to prove your "evidence" which proves your theory and so on and so on. His point is not that you should not bring evidence to bear, but you don't need evidence for your evidence, for your evidence so on and so on.
phi223 1 year ago
@phi223 nicely reasoned. DAA gets it wrong again.
DAA = Dumb Ass Atheist!
TruthWatch 1 year ago
at some point you start to wonder if these people actually know two turds about scientific method...
rotcivzag 1 year ago
Billy Bob is a master of semantics.
panterguy 1 year ago
@panterguy sorry my cursor spliped (is that well written XD?)
rotcivzag 1 year ago
Theists fail to realise that it is very difficult, almost to the point of impossibility, to serve up evidence in support of the existence of a First Cause, namely, God. Just about every argument formulated in their favour has been refuted or proven to be fallacious.
S8917560G 1 year ago
Is it just me or is this guy doing an imitation of William Shatner, as Capt. Kirk?
ivanhale 1 year ago 5
@ivanhale and a bad one at that.
TruthWatch 1 year ago
It is an argument, a very good one. Think about explaining something to your 10 year old child. And in turn your child asks "why". No matter what answer you give your child he or she can continually as 'why' to every answer you come up with. Infinitely.
That is what he is saying.
It's a very very strong point.
kedmonton 1 year ago
@kedmonton
Congratulations!
I just can't beleive so many people need to have it spelled out for them :/
SmalltimR 1 year ago
@SmalltimR the only thing is that this is not what Dawkins says in his book. Craig (and you) raise such a silly objection, that you're a just moron if you think Dawkins couldn't think of it, and needed an evangelical wing-nut like Lame to point it out.
read the God Delusion and try to understand the argument, instead of listening to Craig's bullshit
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago 2
@AgeOfReasonXXI Craig quotes directly from the book. He dismantles the argument point by point. FAIL!
TruthWatch 1 year ago
@TruthWatch really? and where in the "God Delusion" does Dawkins deny that in order to recognize an explanation as the best you don't need an explanation of the explanation? Nowhere. What Dawkins says is that, given the presupposition of the argument, i.e. complexity needs an explanation due of it's improbability, to posit an even more complex designer is not to give answer, but to shoot yourself in the foot: now you have to explain the complex (hense improbable) designer
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI You are confused, the quote from "The God Delusion"
is the statement concerning the appearance of design. Dawkins then says that
inferring a designer requires the further explanation of the designer.
This is as Craig points out, an invitation to an impossible infinite regress.
Dawkins in no way demonstrates that a designer is of necessity more complex than the organism designed, he simply asserts this as fact.
The improbabilty is higher for chance than design.
TruthWatch 1 year ago
@TruthWatch "inferring a designer requires the further explanation of the designer"
bc the inferrence is made based on the assumption that the complexity of the Universe is improbable and needs an explanation. But the complexity of the designer would also be improbable, and in need of an explanation.
The suggestion that an all-powerful designer, capabale of doing anything logically possible, is simpler than a bacteria that is capable of little more than growing and reproducing, is ludicrous
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
This is what Craig actually says about this: " Dawkins' fundamental mistake lies in his assumption that a divine designer is an entity comparable in complexity to the universe. As an unembodied mind, God is a remarkably simple entity. As a non-physical entity, a mind is not composed of parts, and its salient properties, like self-consciousness, rationality, and volition, are essential to it."
Nice try, but the head fake with comparing the complexity of God to bacteria is what is ludicrous.
TruthWatch 1 year ago
@TruthWatch "As a non-physical entity, a mind is not composed of parts, and its salient properties, like self-consciousness, rationality, and volition, are essential to it."
all these properties are the result of neural interactions. as is the mind itself. Virtually all neuro-scientists say that, and they are the specialists in this area. Craig is a mere layman. and he'd be laughed off as totally ignorant if he said that to a neuroscientist.
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI Not so fast. There are neuro scientists who do not
presuppose materialist dogma like you just did.
What pray tell are your qualifications to make such a claim?
Do those neuro scientist's ACTUALLY say that the properties of the mind are CAUSED by the firing of neurons, or simply that neuron activity is detected
in various parts of the brain during its operations? (Not the same thing)
TruthWatch 1 year ago
@TruthWatch "Do those neuro scientist's ACTUALLY say that the properties of the mind are CAUSED by the firing of neurons"
yes, they do. virtually all of them. and no, they don't presuppose materialism. it's their conclusion. only theistic philosophers still cling to dualism. no one asks for their opinion on the subject, though.
"nothing more than"
that just shows your bias. what does it matter whether the mind is a product of the brain or not? it doesn't make it ay less fascinating, right?
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI Actually the majority of them do presuppose philosophical
materialism. If you doubt this read the book "The Spiritual Brain" by Mario Beauregard. It deals rather nicely with this issue.
You say "only theistic philosopher's still cling to dualism" LOL! You mean the large majortiy of the earth's population? Sorry its the materialist's who need to prove their case to overide millenia of philosophical thought to the contrary.
Assumption and assertion is not enough.
TruthWatch 1 year ago
@TruthWatch you seem unable to grasp the simple fact that, if it requires stunningly complex arrangemnts of parts in order for an entity to be capable of performing simple funcions like growing and reproducing , to suggest that an entity capable of thinking, reasoning, etc., requires no parts AT ALL, is insane. maybe that's why every discovery we've made concering the workings of the mind points to interactions between the components of the extreemely complex physical system we call the brain
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI It's not a failure to grasp the concept, simply a failure to be convinced that the physical world is all there is. One must make just that
presupposition for the idea that a mind can be immaterial to be "insane" as you suggest. The more radical idea at work here is the suggestion that human beings
are nothing more than the sum of their electrochemical processes.
This something no one but die hard materialists believe. And I say "believe"
knowing that they cannot prove it.
TruthWatch 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@TruthWatch
what you are saying is that you deliberately choose to ignore what is known in order to pursue a belief based solely in your imaginarium, magic thinking, delusional thinking. funny.
"a mind can be immaterial", but where's the evidence for that?
all that we know is that human beings (and all the other animals) are really the sum of...well...matter.
electrochemical processs? lol... you don't even know what that is, retard
cannot prove? sure i can: i can slap you and you'll feel it
transtlantic 1 year ago
@transtlantic Don't uoi ever get tired of using thr juvenile tactic of namecalling.
No wonder people don't believe you are a doctor, do you call your religious patients "retards"? On what do you base your statement that I do not know what electro chemical processes are, your mythical masters degree, or did one of the dwarf orcs in your head tell you that?
Maybe all you know is that human beings (and all the other animals) are really the sum of ...matter." But how can you speak for all?
TruthWatch 1 year ago
@TruthWatch btw-do realize that the quote if your profile "I think, therefore i am."
is from one of the leading dualist philosophers Rene Descartes?
You profess monism, but Descartes was a substance dualist.
Might want to look into changing that quote dude!
TruthWatch 1 year ago
@TruthWatch
speak for all? considering that i am far more educated and qualified than you regarding matters of science, i do speak for what is known. while you speak for those that are uneducated and ignorant.
i do know who wrote the quote, obviously. I also read the "Descartes' error", a book written by one of the leading researchers on neurobiology - Dr António Damásio (he did his med school in the same place i did).
"profess monism"? ahahah...hilarious.
transtlantic 1 year ago
Comment removed
TruthWatch 1 year ago
@transtlantic Yes, yes were all really impressed, no doubt you were head of your class at Miskatonic University. (literary reference) You'll no doubt pretend you knew its source, but you will in fact go google it and then come back here and lie.
You have to keep up the pretense that you are better educated than
all of us poor benighted souls who wallow in our superstition.
So youare in fact a dualist? my bad. I assumed that your philosophy was at least consistant with your words
TruthWatch 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@TruthWatch
my university: University of Lisbon. i also spent two years at University of Oporto.
very real places, dumbass.
i did have to google that place, i had an idea of the name but couldn't recall it. childish books of Horror already are past to me. dumbwit. i prefer more adult literature.
I am better educated than you. you do keep trying to promote an argument of ad hominem against me, but that just shows how scared you are. loser.
"benighted souls", souls don't exist, dumbwit.
transtlantic 1 year ago
@transtlantic I have no doubt that Lisbon is real. I'm just not so convinced you are as
smart as you keep telling us you are. I am a man of faith, but there are limits.
Perhaps you might actually demonstrate that vast intellect rather than crudely
boasting of it. That tactic is only making people laugh at you. Just lie your badly
executed plan of attack using insults.
You pretend to know how I feel just because I decided to have a bit of fun at your expense. LOL!
TruthWatch 1 year ago
@TruthWatch
there are limits? you mean... i put into question your faith? poor me.
i am showing my vast intelect. i am debunking all of your crap. that's why you now resort to ad hominem. you have nothing else to do.
You the one who talked about the placebo effect. such effect doesn't CURE anything. it has a mild effect in a few selected cases where it reduces symptoms, never signs directly related to the cause of disease.
"really are a genuis"? lol...the humour. you being corrected by me. AH
transtlantic 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@TruthWatch
a dualist? not at all. i am not a dualist. how could i possibly give you that impression?
"tranny"? ah... typical christian loser discrimination. no surprise there. and nope, i am not a transexual.
I have witness the placebo effect. but the placebo effect does not cure pneumonia, it may reduce symptoms, but not signs, heck...it even might not appear (which is usually the VAST majority of the cases).
Patients do believe they will get better under my care, that's why they seek an MD.
transtlantic 1 year ago
@transtlantic I don't believe anyone has suggested that the placebo effect would cure pneumonia, so saying that does not help you. You really don't get the humor here, that's okay, well just blame the language barrier,because we KNOW that you really are a genuis.
TruthWatch 1 year ago
@transtlantic more funny boasting. So what if your buddy disagrees with Descartes?
TruthWatch 1 year ago
@TruthWatch
my "buddy" is one of the leading researchers on human neurobiology.
ergo his books, ideas and research being great paradigm changes.
he has evidence that mind is produced by the brain. the brain is stimulated by the environment "helping" to produce what we call our personalities, mind.
you don't know where is Lisbon? astonishing. one of the leading capitals of the world for more than 2 centuries in the past.
i don't give a flying fuck if you are a man of faith in fantasy.
transtlantic 1 year ago
@transtlantic Yes I know "where is Lisbon". All its glory in the distant past, how sad.
It is your claims to great intelligence that strain my ability to believe. I do need some real evidence for that. So far there has been nothng.
TruthWatch 1 year ago
@TruthWatch
there's no requirement to change the quote. Matter procedes mind. and mind realizes the past. that all there is is materalistic.
when you have no ad hominem and a point to present, feel free to do so.
up until then: fuck off, you retarded fuckwit.
transtlantic 1 year ago
@transtlantic Though a brilliant young doctor, transatlantic (known as tranny is his
social circle) was puzzled why none his patients ever exibited what the other doctors
called "the placebo effect". One day he enquired of one of the nurses and she told him the plain unvarnished truth "none of your patients ever actually BELIEVE that they will getter better under your care".
"But I tell them the truth!" he stammered.
"Hey you asked" she said and returned to her work.
TruthWatch 1 year ago
@TruthWatch
You story is quite a pile of horse shit nonsense. but hey...we all know you must love homeopathy, chiroquackery and other related nonsense! LOLOL
let me bet: I bet you also praise Crazy Icke for his Alien lizards conspiracy! LOLOLOL
i do treat nutjobs with respect. but wait...are you admiting that you are a nutjob?
finaly.
transtlantic 1 year ago
@transtlantic Well of COURSE it's horse shit you poor humorless portugese physician.
I have no idea who "Crazy Icke" is. Is he an imaginary friend of yours?
Don't you appreciate the irony of complaining about "ad hominem" while simutaneously calling me names like nutjob, retarded fuckwit, dumbwit,dumbass,loser and (the pièce de résistance) christian loser. I'm sure you see this as a valid debate strategy but everyone else here sees it for what it is: pathetic and immature. So please continue!
TruthWatch 1 year ago
@TruthWatch
"Portugese"? again? it's the second time you wrote it, so it's not a mispelling. It's Portuguese, you ignoramus. damn... you really are a dumbwit.
forget about Crazy Icke, better if you don't become aware of that lunatic. your delusional thinking doesn't require more stimulus.
calling you names is a statement of fact: you are a nutjob, dumb, uneducated, a dumbass, and so stupid and so ignorant that you are probably mentally challenged.
transtlantic 1 year ago
@transtlantic Well at least my misspelling was consistant. It is not surprising though, Portugal is not a real country like Spain or France is it?
So I can make up names to call you and then say I'm just "stating facts"?
I learn so much great stuff here on YouTube. Thanks moron!
TruthWatch 1 year ago
@TruthWatch
consistant? you meant your ignorance on how to write Portuguese. it's ok. i don't expect homeschooled idiots like you to know all basic words.
"not a real country"? ah...more ad hominem.
AHAHAH
no doubt: there has been nothing. no evidence for spirits, OBE, supernatural NDEs, God, ghosts. zero, nada, niente.
when you have some evidence for any of that fantasy crap feel free to show it.
LOLOL
now fuck off, kid.
transtlantic 1 year ago
@transtlantic Wow. insulting your country is not "ad hominem" genius. Unless of course you are the only
person living there. It is pretty small. Is is true that if one were to give Europe an enema, Portugal is where they
would put the tube?
TruthWatch 1 year ago
@TruthWatch
"is is true"? damn...and the "t" is not even close to the "s"...
do you suffer some sort of visual disorder?
i see you still not showing any sort of evidence for the supernatural.
no wonder that ANY cretard is a complete joke... AHAHAHAHAH
who designed the designer! indeed!
transtlantic 1 year ago
@transtlantic Thank you for confirming that Portugal is where we would put the tube when europe gets an enema. Yes, I do have a slight visual impairment, but better that than your mental one.
So shall I find all of your grammar errors now or are you going to be a dick every time I make a minor typing error?
TruthWatch 1 year ago
@TruthWatch
lol...i was able to notice your visual impairment.
lol...
"minor typing error"? why repeat over and over "minot typing error"? you either ignore how to write those words or you have a disorder that makes you to misspell some words.
but why the flame wards?
have you shown evidence for the immaterial yet? nope.
transtlantic 1 year ago
@transtlantic I don't find any place where I wrote "minot typing error".
You do know what a typing error is right?
Now tell me what a "flame ward" is supposed to be. Is this some portuguese
idiom indicating intellectual impotence on your part?
Is it something your imaginary friend Crazy Icke does?
Still looking for the immaterial in your microscope?
TruthWatch 1 year ago
@TruthWatch
i do know what a typing error is. but repeating one is quite an exposure of your ignorance.
Portuguese? sure: Quando é que vais apresentar alguma evidência que prove o sobrenatural?
i would look for the immaterial, but you keep not showing any for me to look at. where is it? inside your arse next to the unicorns? AHAHAHAH
moron.
transtlantic 1 year ago
@transtlantic You still don't get it do you? Only material things are visible. That means the immaterial are NOT visible. So looking in the telescope or microscope for things that are not visible is just plain stupid. Compreenda ainda, parvo?
TruthWatch 1 year ago
@TruthWatch
so what you are saying is that there is a unicorn living inside your ass. amazing story.
if the "immaterial" is not visible. how the fuck do you know it exists? you are ASSUMING there is "immaterial" things, like fairies, gods and spirits. meaning: they do not exist, and yet you ASSUME they do. perfect example of delusion.
"compreenda ainda"? you probably wanted to write: Compreendes agora, parvo?
damn...i am correcting you in two different languages now.
AHAHAHAH
transtlantic 1 year ago
@transtlantic The existence of the immaterial is a debateable point. The meaning of the word "immarerial" is not. I do hope you can see the difference. You are the same person who made up the word "debunkery" though, so maybe you don't.
Another problem here is that you think that "belief" and "delusion" mean the same thing too, but they don't. I believe in God based on the evidence I have been presented with and my own personal experience. I don't pretend that any of that is empirical.
TruthWatch 1 year ago
But neither do I concede that the evidence I base my belief on is "delusion"
as people like you and Richard Dawkins maintain. You cannot empirically prove my belief
false, therefore it cannot be called delusion.
I used babelfish to translate the phrase "understand yet, moron?" into portuguese.
"compreenda ainda, parvo?" was the result it gave me. I will happily concede yours is the
superior skill in your language if you will concede my skill is superior in mine.
TruthWatch 1 year ago
@TruthWatch
read the chapter on delusion at the DSM-IV. the sole reason your belief is not considered as a delusion it's because it's included in a set of social environment where more share the same belief, your belief doesn't afffect your personal, family and social life, etc. meaning: religious belief is excluded from the delusion category by deliberate set of traits imposed. in the TRUE neurobiological sense: religious belief IS a delusion
i can actually empirically prove your belief false
transtlantic 1 year ago
@transtlantic Yes no doubt you can, provided that we start with aa assumption of materialism.
TruthWatch 1 year ago
@TruthWatch
we don't require to start with an assumption of materialism. we SEE that is all materialistic.
you didn't prove otherwise or proved a non-materialistic existence.
therefore: i didn't present any kind of assumption. and you keep not adressing any of my points.
mediocre intelect? more ad hominem and jack shit evidence against me and complete failure to adress my points.
insecure personality? lol... why? i have no such traits
no respect for others? i do have respect for all.
transtlantic 1 year ago