Non-Prophets Ridicule William Lane Craig

[MoonwalkerWorshiper]

Excuses, excuses.

[Requiemxtoxinnocence]

@MoonwalkerWorshiper The whole gist of the whole 2+2=5 deal is that Krauss was trying to speak about how you can't rely on classical logic when dealing with the universe, he was not saying it's okay to rape little girls as Craig accuses him of. It's kind of like aristotle's example with a heavy object and lighter object falling at the same rate which you would logically think wouldn't happen.

[CarlosMarti123]

@Requiemxtoxinnocence NOTHING in logic states that a heavier object must fall faster than a lighter object. Please LEARN the difference between "logic" and "intuition." If it were illogical that a heavy object falls at the same rate as a lighter object, then it would produce a CONTRADICTION, which it does not.

[MoonwalkerWorshiper]

[I would be rather curious to have you explain why you think it is wrong.]

No apologetics argue that we should believe what the disciples said about Jesus resurrection because they were willing to die for their beliefs. They say we should believe that THEY honestly believed it.

[I expect an apology on your claim no one but me ever called Craig on his cherry picking and dishonesty will be forthcoming.]

That's weird, you expect me to apologize for a claim I never made, well can't help you

[uvauva2]

@MoonwalkerWorshiper

"No apologetics argue that we should believe what the disciples"

Are you illiterate? You were addressing Krauss's quote about "this of course is simply proof that New Testament scholars have an a priori faith that guides them", and I asked you about THAT. Why are you answering about something entirely different?

"you expect me to apologize for a claim I never made"

You insinuated me calling WLC a dishonest cherry picker was of no merit, as none of his famous opponents (...)

[MoonwalkerWorshiper]

@uvauva2 [Why are you answering about something entirely different?]

I didn't. Maybe you are illiterate? of course not, atheists cannot be wrong, but for the time being let me explain it to you

Krauss thinks Craig argues that we should believe Jesus rose from the dead because, the disciples were willing to die for that belief. That's wrong - a faulty assumption on Krauss part. The argument is that it shows that the disciples believed it honestly themselves. Only that, not the resurrection itself

[uvauva2]

@MoonwalkerWorshiper

(...) did. Now that I pointed out examples (and I'm sure it wouldn't be very hard finding more, if I were to waste time googling about it), you backtrack, with your pants down, and try to focus instead on such crucial details as T-shirts. I would say you are scraping the barrel, although based on present evidence, I don't think your barrel ever had much more to start with.

[MoonwalkerWorshiper]

@uvauva2 [you backtrack, with your pants down]

Well honestly I had better hopes for academic physists than to act like butthurt like children defaming their opponent on the internet and revealing T shirts saying 2+2=5 (at which, naturally, youtube mathematicians cheer) but you have successfully proved me wrong. You're right, at least one person have been accusing Craig of these things and I ought to take that person very seriously indeed.

[MoonwalkerWorshiper]

Wait a minute ahahaha Krauss thinks 2 + 2 = 5

[MoonwalkerWorshiper]

After all that's the first book Krauss has written where he attempts to be a philosopher rather than physicist which is interesting given that Craig took him to the woodsheds and this made Krauss such a sore loser that he had to whine about Craig in ad hominem fashion on the internet and then try to play philosopher in a new book to rebuild his self esteem.

[MoonwalkerWorshiper]

"Lane Craig shithead" truly we are dealing with a circle of intellectual brights discussing the difficult, ancient old questions mankind have struggled with

[uvauva2]

@MoonwalkerWorshiper

Considering the nature of the Craig's quotes they were discussing, that language actually raised the level of the conversation.

[MoonwalkerWorshiper]

@uvauva2 Yes it surely raised the level of the conversation, I feel enlightened indeed and consider these guys should take over Craig's position as professional academic at Talbot university. You see, people saying "Lane Craig shithead" are the truly intellectuals of our world. THEY have the answers. Being atheists makes you right, see.

[uvauva2]

@MoonwalkerWorshiper

" Yes it surely raised the level of the conversation, I feel enlightened indeed and consider these guys should take over Craig's position as professional academic at Talbot university."

You do realize that for this comment to have any relevance it would require Craig's original remarks to have any intellectual merit. As it stands they are ridiculous, and ridicule is what they deserve.That or crying over how easily he "sells" any sense of decency to bow to his imaginary(...)

[MoonwalkerWorshiper]

@uvauva2 Because, as you point out yourself, it's THESE guys we should listen to and take seriously.

For example, take the guy in the middle of this photograph. Jeff Dee, looking like an immature brat screaming in the mic like some wannabe tough guy - THAT is the man! That is the true intellectual, the kind of man that deserves authority and respect, the BRIGHT guy you really want to listen to because he has the answers. This makes sense. It also makes to consider the druggie to your left.

[uvauva2]

@MoonwalkerWorshiper

"Because, as you point out yourself, it's THESE guys we should listen to and take seriously."

Except I didn't say that. If you incapable of replying to what I actually said instead of what you wanted me to have said, there's no point in a conversation.

And I listen to neither of these guys as authorities. I'm my own authority, and, quite frankly, I'm more competent and knowledgeable than any of them. I listen to them, when I do, for entertainment.

[uvauva2]

@MoonwalkerWorshiper

"For example, take the guy in the middle of this photograph. Jeff Dee, looking like an immature brat screaming in the mic like some wannabe tough guy - THAT is the man!"

As for this, it is freaking irrelevant. I suppose it's like claiming Einstein couldn't possibly be an authority in physics due to his famous disheveled, thong showing picture.

I actually do generally dislike Jeff Dee, since I often find his points wrong and emotional, but the picture is of no consequence.

[MoonwalkerWorshiper]

@uvauva2 [it is freaking irrelevant]

So is William Lane Craig's doctorate and expertise in philosophy.

[Except I didn't say that.]

Hmmm.... [I've listened a fair amount to these guys]

You spend time listening to this TV show, but you consider Craig a man worth laughing at. That's probably because he defends christianity and atheists are always right (by default cuz they says so).

[I'm more competent and knowledgeable than any of them]

Yes, aswell as superior to Craig. You're God, in fact.

[uvauva2]

@MoonwalkerWorshiper

"So is William Lane Craig's doctorate and expertise in philosophy."

The doctorate is secondary, and there is no such thing as "expertise in philosophy". The thing about philosophy is that, unlike actual fields of knowledge like math or science, for each philosophical movement that espouses this or that, you have another one who labels the first one as worthless.

"Yes, aswell as superior to Craig. You're God, in fact"

As a matter of fact, yes, but it hardly requires godhood

[uvauva2]

@MoonwalkerWorshiper

"You spend time listening to this TV show, but you consider Craig a man worth laughing at"

Maybe you can't read, but I mentioned that I listen to the TV show (which, for reference, is not where this clip is from) for entertainment. I've actually listened to Craig for the exact same reason, while I could stomach his dishonesty and arrogant pretense of authority on subjects he doesn't understand.

"That's probably because he defends christianity"

Wrong. See above.

[MoonwalkerWorshiper]

@uvauva2 [arrogant pretense of authority on subjects he doesn't understand]

So him studying a little of everything for 30 years in universities around USA, England and Brussel confirming everything he says with other experts in their fields makes him more ignorant than you. Again, I bow down to your impressive ability of speaking these words of truth.

I suppose I shouldn't ask, but what amazing credentials do you have that makes you superior to everyone else in the subject? Being God is a merit?

[uvauva2]

@MoonwalkerWorshiper

(...) properties of infinite sets (if not their very definition), and to pretend that somehow mathematicians consider it a paradox (which is funny, because such a view is better ascribed to 13th century philosophers). I've seen him present, and botch, probability formulas that he knows not how to manipulate, as mere smoke and mirrors to ignorant audiences he knows can't manipulate them either. This is not to mention all his pathetic failure at understanding fundamental(...)

[uvauva2]

@MoonwalkerWorshiper

(...)

physics, and yet comment on it as an authority.

And as if any of this wasn't enough, Craig will also freely admit, when in the company of his own, that all this argument and evidence business that he pretends to pursue as a career, is ultimately irrelevant to him, and that he would believe regardless. Which, I guess, explains why he so readily fabricates "evidence". I'll say it again: Craig is worth no one's time.

[MoonwalkerWorshiper]

@uvauva2 [I'll say it again: Craig is worth no one's time.]

Yeah YOU say that... I'm only scratching my head and wondering why the rest of the academical community doesn't agree with you. Craig encounters debaters time and time again. Hitchens, Harris, Wolpert, Tooley, Shelby Spong, Kagan, Zindler, Grayling, Krauss... all these names. All of them pretty big names, inside or outside the field of philosophy. I can't recall a single time any of them accuses Craig of cherry picking anything. Hmm...

[uvauva2]

@MoonwalkerWorshiper

"I can't recall a single time any of them accuses Craig of cherry picking anything. Hmm..."

Maybe you aren't searching? Why, here's one example:

v=Wb10QvaHpS4

Why, here's another:

scienceblogs;com/pharyngula/20­11/04/lawrence_krauss_vs_willi­am_lan;php

(replace ; with .)

It wouldn't be too hard finding more.

[MoonwalkerWorshiper]

@uvauva2 Ha, Krauss is a weird one, writing: "this of course is simply proof that New Testament scholars have an a priori faith that guides them"

He haven't understood how apologetics argue in order to defend theism.

[MoonwalkerWorshiper]

@uvauva2 Hmm... tell Krauss he's suppose to argue contrary to Craig's position WHILE they're having the debate, not afterwards on the internet when Craig is out of the picture.

[uvauva2]

@MoonwalkerWorshiper

And he did.

The problem here, of course, is that Krauss, unlike Craig, is a proper academic and not a "professional debater". He (Krauss) is used to having polite conversations with people who actually care about finding the truth of the issues at hand, unlike Craig, who is used to engage in debates for the sake of point-scoring.

You can clearly read how surprised Krauss was to discover how underhanded Craig's tactics and motives are.

[MoonwalkerWorshiper]

@uvauva2 [He (Krauss) is used to having polite conversations with people who actually care about finding the truth]

That sounds cute but you're just wrapping things up cuz you're biased, then again, you're an atheist so what should I expect. This Krauss person was a professor in physics, that's all I remember. Apperantly he's written a new kind of book after his debate with Craig:

"A Universe from Nothing: Why There is Something Rather than Nothing"

Seems like Craig made an impression.

[uvauva2]

@MoonwalkerWorshiper [

"A Universe from Nothing: Why There is Something Rather than Nothing"

Seems like Craig made an impression.]

Are you ever deluded... Craig is irrelevant for the book, as he is for most of anything.

[MoonwalkerWorshiper]

[Being a mathematician myself, my favorite examples are of course]

...your favorite examples are when Krauss reveals his T shirt saying 2 +2= 5 I understand you endorse this being a mathematician yourself. Of course you're totally honest as you say your bias as an atheist got nothing to do with. I believe you oh so very much.

[He (Krauss) is used to having polite conversations]

Yeah that's what makes me wonder why Krauss is slandering Craig on the internet instead of saying it to his face

[uvauva2]

@MoonwalkerWorshiper

"...your favorite examples are when Krauss reveals his T shirt saying 2 +2= 5"

That's a T-shirt, and obviously a joke. If by considering that as having any relevance, I MUST presume you imply that Craig was joking as well when he tried to pass Hilbert's Hotel as a paradox, or with his fallacious computations.

Do clarify if that is what you mean, as it will make short work of this conversation.

[MoonwalkerWorshiper]

@uvauva2 What I mean is, some mathematician like yourself who thinks a guy argueing 2 + 2 = 5 is the one who is smarter than Craig (aswell as considering AtheistExperience as some sort of intelligensia) because he can say it's for very large values of 2. You brought up Hilbert's hotel so you explain it to me and why Craig is wrong about it.

[You insinuated me calling WLC a dishonest cherry picker was of no merit]

Quote me say that.

[uvauva2]

@MoonwalkerWorshiper

"What I mean is, some mathematician like yourself who thinks a guy argueing 2 + 2 = 5"

I won't indulge your stupidity with my time. Having a joke T-shirt is not the same as an argument. Maybe you should focus on the actual debates, instead of T-shirts and photos.

"You brought up Hilbert's hotel"

Google or wiki it, as I won't do it justice in 500 char comment boxes. Then I can point you to videos of Craig misusing it.

[MoonwalkerWorshiper]

@uvauva2 [Having a joke T-shirt is not the same as an argument.]

Why did he took time to reveal the T shirt and why did he spend 5 minutes of his time in the debate argueing this point? Why did he complain about Craig's ignorance of physics before the debate barely even had started? Look at the debate yourself, I just did, he hurls personal opinion on Craig in his opening speech. Why? Is that smart?

See, this WAS a part of the debate.

Why did you bring up Hilbert's Hotel?

[uvauva2]

@MoonwalkerWorshiper

"Why did he took time to reveal the T shirt and why did he spend 5 minutes of his time in the debate argueing this point?"

As I generally don't waste my time listening to Craig's debates ever since I realized the kind of guy he actually is, you will have to point me to the relevant video, preferably with an indication of the relevant time, for me to judge if that's a fair assessment of what Krauss did.

[uvauva2]

@MoonwalkerWorshiper

"Why did he complain about Craig's ignorance of physics before the debate barely even had started? Look at the debate yourself, I just did, he hurls personal opinion on Craig in his opening speech. Why? Is that smart?"

What's this? First you claim opponents never question Craig's competence, now you point me to an example of someone doing so and whine about it?

"Why did you bring up Hilbert's Hotel?"

'cause I've seen Craig use it. I've made this clear.

[MoonwalkerWorshiper]

@uvauva2 Lol, ok then, Craig-Krauss debate, maybe 30 minutes in.

[First you claim opponents never question Craig's competence]

I claim opponents never whine about Craig cherry picking and being dishonest, like you are doing. Didn't say nothing about competence. Everybody knows Craig is a philosopher, and philosophers are not scientists - Craig knows this himself. Of course you're gonna twist natural facts like these in order to make your ad hominems on Craig possible.

[uvauva2]

@MoonwalkerWorshiper

"I claim opponents never whine about Craig cherry picking and being dishonest"

Did you fail to watch the Dennett video I pointed out? And debates are not the full extent of human experience. In particular, in a debate you are severely constrained by time (you'd better not be trying to make a point that can't fit into the time you have) and resources, as you only have access to the material you specifically prepared. Showing Craig for the cherry picker he is (...)

[uvauva2]

@MoonwalkerWorshiper

(...) would require being aware of his most common cherry picks, specifically preparing material on them, and hoping he would actually use them. It's a negative, ungentlemanly approach to debate, and I wouldn't expect any of his opponents whose experiences are mainly of polite conversation in intellectual circles, to take it (although I think someone did once, and was promptly labelled a bully). Krauss is now writing "gloves off", as he put it, as he finally realized (...)

[uvauva2]

@MoonwalkerWorshiper

(...) who Craig is.

And you're not escaping with a straight face: explain your emphasis on the words "YOU" and "Hmmmm" and how they were anything other than meant to dismiss my critic.

"Of course you're gonna twist natural facts like these in order to make your ad hominems on Craig possible."

No twisting necessary. Craig did it all beautifully for me. All I did was listen to him.

[uvauva2]

@MoonwalkerWorshiper

[Lol, ok then, Craig-Krauss debate, maybe 30 minutes in.]

So, by saying he spent five minutes on the issue you actually mean the 1 or 2 minutes it took him to take out his shirt? Because you'll notice he wasn't talking about the T-shirt (or about 2+2=5), it was just a segway to what can happen when you start to deal with infinities, which is true for an appropriate perspective. Personally I'm not a fan of those T-shirts, as I think wittier examples could be made (...)

[uvauva2]

@MoonwalkerWorshiper

(...) but, the thing is, the T-shirts have a dual purpose. They are also a reference to Orwell's 1984.

And, frankly, now you should apologize for trying to make it sound as if Krauss was arguing that indeed 2+2=5 in the usual sense, as that was the gist of your dumb whining.

[uvauva2]

@MoonwalkerWorshiper

"[You insinuated me calling WLC a dishonest cherry picker was of no merit]

Quote me say that."

Your whole comment starting with "Yeah YOU say that..." and ending with "I can't recall a single time any of them accuses Craig of cherry picking anything. Hmm..."

I'm ready to admit I misinterpreted such comment IF you provide an alternative valid interpretation. What were you trying to imply other than it was of no value for ME to claim Craig a cherry picker, since none (...)

[MoonwalkerWorshiper]

@uvauva2 I said I couldn't recall any instance - and for good reason - because I only watch the debates I don't look up sites on the internet where atheist debaters are talking shit about their previous opponents. That's why I thought such opinion probably did not exist, due to the fact that it needs to be part IN the debate. How mistaken I was. I didn't say anything about you. You already guess what I think of people like you AND your math hero Krauss.

[uvauva2]

@MoonwalkerWorshiper

"I said I couldn't recall any instance - and for good reason"

Oh, no no no. You won't wiggle out like this. You may have chosen plausibly deniable wordings, BUT you didn't chose plausibly deniable emphasis, which actually betray the meaning of your words.

What was the point of the emphasis of the "YOU", and the "Hmmm" at the end? I want an explanation for those.

[uvauva2]

@MoonwalkerWorshiper

(...) of his famous opponents did? What, then, is the purpose of your emphasis on the "YOU" in said post? What, then, is the purpose of the "Hmmm..." at the end, suggesting you drew powerful conclusions from such facts?

Explain these satisfactorily and I will retract my claim. Otherwise I still expect an apology.

[uvauva2]

@MoonwalkerWorshiper

"Yeah that's what makes me wonder why Krauss is slandering Craig on the internet instead of saying it to his face"

A few reasons: politeness, particularly in front of an audience of school kids; confusion, as he was not expecting Craig would be this underhanded. The very existence of people as unscrupulous as Craig is something that takes time to sink in. It certainly took me watching multiple and varied debates of his to fully understand there is no hope for that man.

[MoonwalkerWorshiper]

@uvauva2 Also, you might wanna explain what exactly Craig has cherry picked. As for you and Krauss, I smell sore loser, then again you're atheist and you can't be wrong so who am I to speculate.

[The very existence of people as unscrupulous as Craig is something that takes time to sink in.]

Ah, so Craig is SO dishonest that literally the only way to express how dishonest he is, is by writing a slandering article about him instead of saying it to his face. Ad hominems are in Krauss debate anyway

[uvauva2]

@MoonwalkerWorshiper

"You spend time listening to this TV show, but you consider Craig a man worth laughing at"

Maybe you can't read, but I mentioned that I listen to the TV show (which, for reference, is not where this clip is from) for entertainment. I've actually listened to Craig for the exact same reason, while I could stomach his dishonesty and arrogant pretense of authority on subjects he doesn't understand.

"That's probably because he defends christianity"

Wrong. See above.

[uvauva2]

@MoonwalkerWorshiper

(...)

lord.

As for taking over his position at Talbot, I see said position as both worthless as dishonourable, just like Craig. Or are you seriously implying the man is worth anyone's time other than to laugh at?

And never did I claim "being an atheist makes you right". I've listened a fair amount to these guys (mainly in their TV show), and I've either outright disagreed with all of them on subjects, or found their positions simplistic. My comment is for the video here.