T.Fool is clearly intellectually challenged by WLC.
First he made 3or4 videos wher he is distorting the arguments of WLC, then when he was DMCA because he used, copyrighted material, he made all this in to a drama.
I deeply dislike Thunderfoot for sinking to such incredible dishonesty in dealing with Coughlan (really, it was on par with, say, Shock of God), but he sure done slapped Craig good. Then again, Craig provides his opponents with plenty of slappin' fodder whenever he talks about, for instance, science.
"do you believe time always existed then - infinitely in the past?"
The only way you could ask such a question is if you thought time was both linear and absolute.
"Always" is a measure of time. To say time didn't always exist is to literally say the self contradictory statement "there was a time when there was no time".
To say time always existing implies an infinite past regress only makes sense if time is linear.
@DickJohnson3434 You wouldn't be there to say "there is a time when there was no time". How about time began with space and matter...is that plausible?
@DickJohnson3434 I honestly think Jordan here physically isn't capable of viewing any possibility outside of the very narrow mindset he's given himself. As his responses demonstrated here.
That's OK, I've argued with many different theists who believe many different things and I've never had any of them admit even the slightest problem with their beliefs. Whether they are arguing for a young earth, a literal bible, miracles, prayer, heaven and hell, evolution, weak deism or some vague, undefined spirituality, I have been quite unable to shift any of their beliefs one iota.
I have arguments here for the readers, not the people I'm arguing with.
@musicmode13100 Would it be equally amusing if someone slandered thunderf00t? How about engaging the arguments instead... no I suppose that would make too much sense.
@MoonwalkerWorshiper Is it really slander? It's showing off his hypocrisy, where he shows he has double standards. That is, it's not okay for others to simply drop names instead of refuting an argument... but when he does it, suddenly that's perfectly fine.
@sonic8005 [It's showing off his hypocrisy] No because 1 there is'nt any hypocrisy and 2 the video contains only declarative statements, not a demonstration about hypocrisy.
@MoonwalkerWorshiper No, it's hypocrisy when you say it's not an argument to do something and then do the exact same thing as an "argument". That's Craig establishing something that isn't an argument and then he does it anyway, despite what he had just said.
This video doesn't but this isn't the Thunderf00t video in question at all. Your point isn't valid.
I have entertained the thought that Craig should be just neglected. Scientists and famous people should definitely neglect him and not debate him. But ordinately people, youtubers, should deconstruct and expose his fallacious arguments, because not only Craig's fans listen to his videos, but young people who are looking for the 'truth' may get hooked to his 'logic'.
It's not dificult to find faults with Craig's arguments, even I have made some videos doing just that.
WLC Fanatic(s) plural? Well, I think there is only one fanatic. "John Leonard", who seems to take it too far some times. There's hardly a "group" of them.
Usually the theists who enjoy WLC just get mad about the fact that internet atheists misrepresent and distort Craig's arguments, without even trying to understand them. Overall, they just academically nitpick them, rather than weigh them out realistically. Typically, thats the complaint, not fanaticism, you hear coming from the WLC camp.
@JaffarDS Christopher Hitchens also verbally eviscerated people who made appeals to authority. If you have an argument to make in favor of WLC, then make it. You won't win any points with anyone, by asserting that Hitchens had a favorable opinion of him. Reiterating his arguments and giving him due credit is fine, but don't disrespect the man's memory by committing one of his least favorite fallacies in his name.
I agree, no point taking on Willy2Cites arguments with other Christians when you can just hit 'em right in the spirit-nads by quoting 2 scriptures (Mt 24:30-34 and Mk 14:62 throw in Deut 18:22 to show there's no need to fear a false prophet) then label Jesus a false prophet. They scramble for a bit telling you it's the wrong interpretation of scripture, you ask them how it can possibly be otherwise interpreted, reaffirm he's a false prophet, and bam, they're spent. Works for me every time! :D
@jordan6030 I've yet to see WLC provide anything except logical fallacies and circular rhetoric. Can you cite anything that WLC actually 'pwned' anyone with?
@TheHigherVoltage I'm intellectually honest...and they make plenty of sense to me...I'm sure there are a lot of other intellectually honest people...maybe in the order of millions that WLC's arguments make sense to. What you really mean is that his arguments don't make sense to atheists.
@jordan6030 if the argument is nonsensical then its nonsensical. logic doesnt change depending on your world view. it isnt subjective. wlc's arguments are bunk, demonstrably so. what you really mean is atheists dont accept the arguments because they are atheists, this may be the case but the fact is that the arguments are false.
@jordan6030 firstly, i didnt say incoherent, i said false. they are different. we can start with kalam. things dont "begin to exist" everything is simply a rearranging of pre-existing stuff. for things to "begin to exist" would break physical laws, namely, the conservation of energy. you give me one of his arguments, i will refute it. they are easy.
@JustTrollinAlong In that case your assuming the universe is eternal. Steven Hawking would disagree with you. Even he believes the universe began to exist. I think you need to do a bit more research!
@jordan6030 i think you need to do a bit more thinking, because thats not what im assuming. you clearly didnt understand what i was saying. to say that everything "begins to exist" means that something started to be there, which wasnt there before. all things in the universe are all we know to exist, to say they all have been "caused" to exist is false because the material for their existence has always existed with since the universe existed. so the arguments first premise is false.
@jordan6030 so again i say, everything in the universe is simply rearranged previously existing material. nothing in the universe "begins" to exist because that would break physical laws. if you are going to attempt refutation of my criticism, then at least try not to straw man. secondly, even if everything in the universe "began" to exist, you cant assume that therefore the universe is the same way. to apply the same reasoning to different scopes is illogical.
@JustTrollinAlong funny you say physical laws...laws demand a law giver. If you say material is eternal then you say time is eternal. If time is eternal then how did we get to this present point in time? your also suggesting that an infinite number of events have happened in the past prior to the big bang which is philosophically incoherent..ie thats impossible. Your also asserting that mind is derivative of material. I say the opposite!
@jordan6030 I'm sorry, the laws of physics aren't anything like written law whatsoever. The laws are written observations of physics that are always consistent. Matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, merely altered from one state to another.
It's not that said concept is too complicated for you to grasp, it's that you specifically despise that idea as you yourself feel obligated to somehow include the notion of your "law giver".
@sonic8005 first of all..you should be sorry. secondly...I cant understand your second paragraph...it's incoherent. Thirdly I agree that matter and energy cant be created or destroyed...but that is after the big bang event. Matter cant have eternally existed...no scientist in the world believes that.
@sonic8005 well don't say "sorry" then if your going to turn around and say "sorry for what". do you also believe time is eternal as well then? since matter is eternal ofcourse.
@jordan6030 Stop arguing that your opponents simply "believe" these oversimplifications of their arguments.
Matter and energy can change forms, they cannot be created or destroyed. The Big Bang is another state of energy and matter. If you simply cannot understand that then nobody can help you here.
@sonic8005 your an idiot...your suggesting that time is eternal aswell! time can't be eternal!! if you think long and hard enough...you will realise why time cant be eternal...if you give up...ask me and i'll tell you why! really at the end of the day your god is "matter and energy" and you believe mind is derivative of matter and energy. I think the exact opposite.
@jordan6030 It's "you're" not "your" for starters. Idiot.
You're using a "just because" or a "because I said so" position. You also used appeals to authority. You ARE an idiot because you haven't backed up a single thing you said.
Your brain is made of matter, is it not? Without the brain, you cannot have thought. This isn't just phiolosophy or belief, this is established reality of the brain.
You however, WANT to believe that the brain exists because you think, as you just said.
@sonic8005 calling each other idiots wont get you anywhere, and as with most religious pseudo-wannabe-philosophers, jordan just doesnt seem to have the capacity for intellectually honest, rational discourse/discussion, and i think this is in part due to his lacking reading comprehension skills.
@jordan6030 "if you think long and hard enough...you will realise why time cant be eternal" While there is a "zero-point" of time in the cosmological event known as "the big bang", it is (just like the values of distance, temperature, mass, volume, and every other basic value) a reference point.
None of the evidence provided by science prevents some form of a universe from existing before the universe we live in formed. That universe would have a timescale, ergo...
Additionally, you presuppose that [your god is "matter and energy"]. What attributes do these PROVEN states (or should it be state? The Quantum level doesn't clearly distinguish them) of existence have that makes them analogous to gods?
They don't display consciousness, they can't macroscopically violate the laws of the universe (the subatomic violations are more-or-less sticking to tendencies which results in greater stability than having absolute conditions), etc.
"you believe mind is derivative of matter and energy. I think the exact opposite."
What? How the hell can matter and energy be derived from a mind? And how the hell can a mind exist without matter and energy?
And with respect to your ridiculously simple, LINEAR, NEWTONIAN notion of time...let me ask you a simple question, see if you can understand it's relevance...how long can you stop time for?
@DickJohnson3434 you misunderstood what jordan was saying, although he clearly didnt have a good enough vocabulary to be using those words, he meant that mind isnt derived from energy and matter. i already attempted to clear up that matter, he has yet to respond. just dont worry about it.
@DickJohnson3434 because a mind is a conscience - it is not made from matter and energy..pretty simple answer. A mind can also make choices and therefore choose to create. It makes a whole lot more sense this way. you cant stop time once it begins. you believe it never began...therefore how did we reach today? it's logically impossible - ADMIT IT!
@jordan6030 "because a mind is a conscience - it is not made from matter and energy"
That's simply not true, no matter how much you wish it was. The mind entirely requires the brain. Evidence confirms this and there has never been any evidence otherwise. This is something that is already proved.
You have to lie to create this position. As if it's either "time began" at a point or "time never moves". That's a false dichotomy and you know it.
@sonic8005 So you just agreed that a mind isn't composed of matter and energy - yet it exists! all you said was..it needs the brain to function - which is made of matter and energy. hmmm. Time did begin it's been proven philosophically and scientifically..you did didnt answer my argument.. if time never began - then how did we ever reach today?goodluck trying to crack this one.
@jordan6030 Think about it, if your mind was not made of matter, then damage to your brain would in no way, shape or form, ever effect your mind. Yet it does. If your brain damages, memories are lost, your entire attitude changes, everything about you and the way you think changes. If the mind is separate from your brain then none of that would be true.
"Time did begin it's been proven philosophically and scientifically"
No it isn't. There's no evidence of it, what's your "proof"?
Saying "it's not made from matter and energy" is an entirely baseless assertion which you have done nothing to justify.
"you cant stop time once it begins."
I'm afraid you have a very rudimentary understanding of time. Time is not linear, nor is it absolute. You ABSOLUTELY CAN stop time. Wanna know how? All you have to do is travel at light speed. Therefore, MUCH of the universe hasn't aged.
@DickJohnson3434 mind is consciousness! consciousness is not made from matter..If you think it does...I cant help you. However I would agree that your brain is made from matter. Even if time is non-linear that makes no difference to the fact of how we got here today given infinite time...you really need to understand it CANT HAPPEN! before you can get to a specific point prior to today..there is always going to be a point to reach before it. PLEASE UNDERSTAND YOU STUPID STUPID ATHEIST!!
@jordan6030 Mind and consciousness are products of the brain, like walking and running are products of the legs. Claiming a mind can exist independent of some material network is an entirely baseless, and an entirely useless assertion.
"Even if time is non-linear that makes no difference to the fact of how we got here today given infinite time."
Nobody said infinite. You said beginningless time implies infinite time. That is ridiculous because time is not linear.
@DickJohnson3434 I think the opposite - I think the brain is the instrument used by the mind and consciousness to carry out operations/events/thoughts etc. numbers also exist - they are not material entities so this is not a baseless argument. do you believe the universe is eternal? because if you do...don't bother writing back to me.
@jordan6030 "I think the brain is the instrument used by the mind and consciousness to carry out operations"
The brain is made of atoms, which are made of particles which are governed by very real physical forces. Saying your mind has the ability to push and pull the atoms in your brain around, making them disobey the fundamental forces of the universe is EXACTLY as ridiculous as thinking that you could drop a ball and "decide" it's going to fall up.
@DickJohnson3434 wow...your soo full of wisdom! so why cant the mind carry out the throught processes of the brain USING the laws of physics as a mechanism. what's the problem with that? also...the atoms in my mind are now using "very real physical forces" to tell me that god exists...how would you diagnose that? how would you even assess any truths...after all your a materialistic determinist as an atheist lol
"why cant the mind carry out the throught processes of the brain USING the laws of physics"
The same reason Jesus can't walk on water USING the laws of physics. To walk on water, you must VIOLATE the laws of physics. Maybe Jesus COULD violate the laws of physics and just maybe every thought is a miracle (like you believe), but if we live in a sensible and consistent universe, that just simply isn't the case.
@jordan6030 "do you believe the universe is eternal? if you do...don't bother writing back to me."
The universe appears to be finite but unbounded.
But if you think the idea of an eternal universe is just too stupid to even talk to me, then you must rank yourself above Einstein, who absolutely did believe in an infinite universe.
Do you think Einstein was just too stupid to grasp your embarrassingly simple assertions about geometric LINES?
@DickJohnson3434 what do you mean by finite but unbounded? what about time? do you believe time always existed then - infinitely in the past? Einstein has been proved wrong. Modern day science tells us that the universe has a beginning...why do you have difficulty believing that?
Even though we simply don't know if anything did or could precede the big bang, that was not at all my point about Einstein. My point about Einstein is that your silly statements about infinite geometric lines was well known to Einstein, yet they meant nothing. It took observations of receding galaxies to convince scientists, not one liners about linear infinities.
@jordan6030 laws dont demand a law giver, see claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. bald assertions wont do shit. i didnt say material is eternal. get some reading comprehension. again didnt say that. again I DIDNT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT UNIVERSE OR MATERIAL BEING ETERNAL, so im not suggesting anything about infinity. philosophically incoherent? you clearly no very little about true philosophy. the mind is derivative of material, and demonstrably so. look at coma patients.
@jordan6030 (cont) if the case is that you are in fact lacking in reading comprehension, and verbal discussion is better for you, and if you have a mic, then you can come to a room i frequent where we can have a discussion/debate on the topic. voxli com / pointmanzero
@jordan6030 His arguments don't hold water with many believers either.
"maybe in the order of millions that WLC's arguments make sense to."
There's the order of millions of Scientologists who's apologetics make sense to them too. It doesn't mean any of it is valid evidence in any intellectually honest evaluation.
WLC preaches to his choir. He makes sense in the same way parents make sense legitimizing Santa to kids - arguments of faith and feelings. presented as somehow valid evidence.
@jordan6030 All I've ever heard him argue is reworded versions of the same old bull from every theistic religion - We exist, and I have faith a story is real, therefore that storygod is real.
The last WLC argument I heard was a reworded version of the cosmological argument. The same tired old bull.
Once again, I've yet to hear an argument where WLC isn't just preaching to the choir. Can you point me to any argument he's made where he actually proved anything?
I concur that William Lane Craig's arguments are not worth the time. They are just reformulated versions of the same specious arguments that Christians have been using for centuries. Merely updating the Kalam Cosmological argument with some distorted use of modern cosmology doesn't make the argument from first cause any more cogent, except to those who are duped by the APPEARANCE of sophistication. In any case, we must address those who use DMCA's inappropriately to censor people.
See one thing Tf00t royally fucked up with was that when he is propagating and repeating this "two citations" chant, is that he has two -scientific- citations. WLC doesn't claim to be a scientist. So WLC could just as well ridicule Tf00t for having 0 citations for philosophical papers. WLC actually has quite a few citations for philosophy, so that point is just void.
That being said, fuck WLC and everything about him, but at least be honest when you go into detail about it
@Bleachfanoftheyear: The man who stands up and pontificates on the shoeing of horses had best have learned at least which end of the horse the shit comes out of.
@Bleachfanoftheyear Oh, I understand, you are right. Even so, even if thunderf00t was correct in his assertions, I find the number of citations argument itself to be besides the point of the discussion. Thunderf00t should not use nicknames like "two citations". But it still holds that what WLC is doing, at least in his videos, is popular apologetics and not serious religious philosophy.
WLC is just a sophist. That's the only reason his audience, that suffers from self-inflicted ignorance, eats it up so much. He does the thinking for them and they don't realize how flawed his arguments are. IMO
I am no fan of William Lane Craig - but at least he engages his opponents in public debate (and, whilst I dislike his arguments - he is very skilled at presenting them).
Fanboy "drcraigvideos" stifles any sort of debate, bans anyone who tried to question him or WLC on his videos & often selectively posts snips of debates out of context with provocative titles ("WLC HUMILIATES Dr. X!")
It is pathetic & also totally hypocritical to stifle debate on the videos of a professional debater...
That fan if WLC is even more than just a fundie, looking at his comments the guy really is crazy.
Claiming that TF requires permission from him to post the criticisms of WLC? The fact that he admits he claimed copyright and admits he's not the owner of those videos, despite consistently insisting that permission should have been asked of him instead of WLC?
It's almost like one of those obsessed stalker situations...
@Skindoggiedog He wasn't... when William Lane Craig was mentioning Youtube users... he mentioned this guy's channel and specifically described it as "pirated". Though apparently he didn't file any legal takedown because it had what appeared to be a lot of views.
I don't know why theologians are competing with atheists on who can be a bigger dick. I'm sure if I devoted much of my time to the books of WLC and the like I could learn a lot, but when you hear them debate it's not very interesting. Too much simplicity, smug remarks and atheists haven't given any evidence against Christianity remarks. Doesn't sound much better to me than atheists who are to good to even discuss Christian arguments.
Oh... TF loves having a DMCA. He got more, then he must be very pleased to get more attention.
What is better is to just not even know who this WLC is and not care at all what TF thinks about him. I must be subscribed to you for some reason, but this video isn't it.
The funny thing is this: I barely knew about William L. Craig and how bullshit he and his arguments were... until the did the DMCA on Tf00t. Now everyone and their mother is posting about him.
@NeroJoe83 Too many fundies repeat his arguments as if they were solid, but they don't understand them well enough to use their own words or defend them.
But like all such, they reduce to "spot the fallacy" exercises.
They try to generate information out of nothing to make up for the fact that there is none from which to conclude a god - if there were that would be the absent evidence they talk about but never provide, and they wouldn't need fallacious arguments like Craig's.
@NeroJoe83 Craig did not do the DMCA. The channel owner that did, created a Craig channel without Craig's legal permission. Craig will probably distance himself from the channel owner by making him close down his Craig channel for making him look bad.
Listening to WLC is like listening to a bad politician. He drones on without ever really saying anything. He starts with a false premise and builds on that. Ignoring any rebuttals. Constantly asserting the same empty false claims. Parrying valid points with redirection like his opponent is not even in the room. It's painful to listen to his "debates". I just refrain.
This might seem weird, but as an atheist, I find religious philosophy and theology really engaging. To me, it is like "what would God be like if we assume he exists?". My favorite by far is Kierkegaard's "Frygt og Bæven", but I also enjoy Spinoza, Thomas Aquinas, Hegel (although not reading the primary sources), and Meister Eckhart. Also, I do enjoy oriental religious philosophy, especially the Tao Te Ching and and the Buddhist scriptures. WLC though, is sadly not worthy do be on that list.
What has happened specifically due to the WLC 'fanatics' is that they have "personified" Christian apologetics as WLC.
I too am interested in the legalities of the current drama, not because its thunderf00t but because it will hopefully (via the vast amount of subscribers he has both for and against his position) spread the 'what not to do' as far as DMCA'ing goes. Hopefully it will send a shriek down the backs of the morons who live to do it.
WLC still cannot get over the fact that his opponents disagree on the definition of the word atheist. He has to make it a point to whine about it in every single debate. The guy is nuts. He drives me nuts. I can't stand him.
Kalam is stupid, and it's old. The final conclusion is literally "therefore the universe has a cause." Seriously? Come on, dude. I know he's a serious thinker, but that just makes boring through the mountains of casework on these arguments even more tedious and pointless.
No doubt his more popular works are written almost like "how-tos" for dealing with non-christians, and a lot of his work does go into debates more than actual scholarship, but I'd encourage people who are serious about philosophy of religion and especially those who are curious about philosophy of time to read his more obscure, I think we can rightly say, scholarly works. Time and Eternity, Philosophical Foundations, and his entry in the Blackwell Companion...
Is he a towering figure in analytic philosophy, like Searle or even Plantinga? Absolutely not, but that he's the most well-known defender of the faith is beyond dispute and critics of Christianity ought to at least thoroughly and fairly evaluate his arguments before writing off Craig the man.
I understand you're an apologist and a fan of WLC, but don't assume we haven't looked at this internet monolith, particularly not when internet apologists are always harping on him.
His arguments? You mean like "even if you defeat all my arguments I still have my subjective experience" argument? His moral argument? His "therefore the universe has a cause therefore god exists" argument?
They may be rigorously argued that, doesn't make them any less ridiculous.
I don't see anything objectionable about those arguments. If you have honest curiosity about these arguments, I'd encourage you to buy his latest "Reasonable Faith" book, or the "Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology" paperback.
I have absolutely no curiosity about those arguments. That's the problem. They're that stupid on their face.
I'm not about to be told by a Christian apologist claiming to be a professional philosopher that his subjective experience should be a serious consideration in an academic debate after all of his arguments have been defeated. That's just silly. You don't see how that's objectionable? Then you're silly. This is basic epistemology, ground zero.
"I have absolutely no curiosity about those arguments."
Well that's certainly not the attitude of a philosopher.
"that his subjective experience"
He was telling others that, if they experienced the holy spirit, that they should still believe in christianity. He never said "I saw X, therefore you should believe me"
Again, I'd encourage you to honestly and thoroughly evaluate the arguments. They can be found in his latest "reasonable faith" book.
Well, bro, I really hate to intrude on your srs bsns internet philosophy bubble, but I'm not a serious philosopher, I'm just a dude with a niggling bit up his ass about religion.
That doesn't mean you can't masturbate to copies of Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, but it does mean I don't really give a shit, because frankly if someone's going to tell me that I should take subjective experience seriously, it sure as fuck isn't gonna be William Lane Craig.
Good view on the situation and I am happy to see a philophy student who wants to become a philosophy professor take this....pseudo philosopher and basically call bullshit.
Anyway, I hope TF DOES sue him, I hope he sued him for TONS of money, and I hope TF does not let this asshole off the hook like he did VFX. I hope TF makes this asshole homeless through the court system.
I truly despise the guy who runs drcgraigvideos (John Leonard) more than dr craig & tf00t combined.
That guy deserves to have his channel closed so he can taste a lil of his own medicine. You can't go around youtube threatening to close people's channel by false flagging other people's opinion on his idol.
What is truly unbearable about Craig is not so much that he is using idiotic arguments, or that he circumlocutes, or that he attacks strawmen, what is unbearable is that he wins fucking arguments that way because of how shitty his opponents' debate skills are. What is so obnoxious about Craig is that TheoreticalBullshit can completely split his entire case apart anally, and yet he's still winning debates with the same case he wrote, evidently anyway, 20 years ago.
TBS constructed these arguments himself, and for that he deserves enormous credit. There are no "canned responses" that you can use against him, but knowing a thing or two about metaphysics, epistemology, and the rest of analytic philosophy will show that his arguments are mostly fallacies of equivocation.
If not fallacies of equivocation, they lead to vicious infinite regresses. Amazingly, he admitted that the assumptions in his counter-argument lead to vicious regresses, to which he responded that it was not a problem.
Honestly, I really haven't a clue about TBS' arguments and I'm willing to bet you've devoted a significant amount of time to them, so I can't say much on that.
But I can say that I don't find WLC's arguments, even rigorously argued as they are, compelling enough to "thoroughly and fairly evaluate his arguments" before writing him off. He literally appeals to subjectivity in debates in academic settings. He begins every debate by agonizing over strawman definitions.
"Honestly, I really haven't a clue about TBS' arguments and I'm willing to bet you've devoted a significant amount of time to them, so I can't say much on that"
That's too bad. TBS and I converse regularly on facebook about his arguments.
And I'm pretty sure his followers are unbearable retards for the same reason that Kent Hovind or "Lord" Monckton followers are unbearable retards - their followers are unbearable retards. It has nothing to do with the person, really, it's just the type of person that latches onto philosophers and professional debaters. It makes people feel special and like they can live vicariously through someone else's public performances.
I'm pretty sure WLC markets himself as a philosopher because he has a doctorate on philosophy and a doctorate of theology from legitimate, old European universities. And I'm pretty sure he's a pretentious, unbearable ass because he has absolutely assraped prestigious scholars and academicians in various fields in public debates at academic institutions, including universities.
Granted, his arguments are fucking pathetic third rate internet tripe, but the above is still true.
@Redfingers yep ,I've got serious reservation about philosophy .I mean ,he'd not be the first guy I've heard talking convoluted twaddle under the guise of philosophy ,you're correct he does have a doctorate in philosophy I assume the bar must be set very low
The guy is very, very smart, and very rigorous, he's just an asshole who happens to be a very good stand up debater.
He really shouldn't reflect poorly on philosophy as a discipline, it's more the state of the institution. In a nutshell, I think the vast majority of serious intellectuals have moved on to mathematics and science, largely because most questions of metaphysics have, for all intents and purposes, realistically been accomplished already.
when someone feels the need to puff themselves up i remember what my father would say "ye must blow his own horn, lest it not get blown"...i also appreciated thunderf00t's video regarding the source (in question)of the DMCA posted today, also...
I don't think TF's argument was that good, he is just jumping on an old bandwagon that was better done by people like TheoreticalBullshit, dewinthemorning, Th1sWasATriumph and a bunch of others. TF just happens to have the biggest channel, not the best arguments.
Also, you're the one talking about interesting discussion? Is that why you employed pure fallacious reasoning in this video? Ridiculous sir, ridiculous!
WLC has always seemed rather unintellectual to me. he is just smart enoug to make what he says sould convincing which leads me to believe he is dishonest
In this issue, I see Thunderfool as a Fanatic.
T.Fool is clearly intellectually challenged by WLC.
First he made 3or4 videos wher he is distorting the arguments of WLC, then when he was DMCA because he used, copyrighted material, he made all this in to a drama.
VyckRo 3 weeks ago
I deeply dislike Thunderfoot for sinking to such incredible dishonesty in dealing with Coughlan (really, it was on par with, say, Shock of God), but he sure done slapped Craig good. Then again, Craig provides his opponents with plenty of slappin' fodder whenever he talks about, for instance, science.
nosensetoitatall 3 weeks ago
I have a PhD in Truthology from Christian Tech University.
AutoBahnForever 3 weeks ago
"do you believe time always existed then - infinitely in the past?"
The only way you could ask such a question is if you thought time was both linear and absolute.
"Always" is a measure of time. To say time didn't always exist is to literally say the self contradictory statement "there was a time when there was no time".
To say time always existing implies an infinite past regress only makes sense if time is linear.
DickJohnson3434 3 weeks ago
@DickJohnson3434 You wouldn't be there to say "there is a time when there was no time". How about time began with space and matter...is that plausible?
jordan6030 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jordan6030 "You wouldn't be there to say "there is a time when there was no time".
Not me saying it then, you saying it now.
"How about time began with space and matter...is that plausible?"
Maybe.
DickJohnson3434 3 weeks ago
@DickJohnson3434 I honestly think Jordan here physically isn't capable of viewing any possibility outside of the very narrow mindset he's given himself. As his responses demonstrated here.
sonic8005 3 weeks ago
@sonic800
That's OK, I've argued with many different theists who believe many different things and I've never had any of them admit even the slightest problem with their beliefs. Whether they are arguing for a young earth, a literal bible, miracles, prayer, heaven and hell, evolution, weak deism or some vague, undefined spirituality, I have been quite unable to shift any of their beliefs one iota.
I have arguments here for the readers, not the people I'm arguing with.
DickJohnson3434 3 weeks ago
I M FLAGGING THIS SHIT!
SirToneyBagels 1 month ago
@SirToneyBagels and im flagging you
musicmode13100 4 weeks ago
@musicmode13100 Too late. i already flagged you. My minions also flagged you.
SirToneyBagels 4 weeks ago
Why upload a video to slander Craig?
MoonwalkerWorshiper 1 month ago
@MoonwalkerWorshiper because it is amusing
musicmode13100 4 weeks ago
@musicmode13100 Would it be equally amusing if someone slandered thunderf00t? How about engaging the arguments instead... no I suppose that would make too much sense.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 4 weeks ago
@MoonwalkerWorshiper slander is amusing, but valid slander is hilarious, at least tf00t makes valid points
musicmode13100 4 weeks ago
@MoonwalkerWorshiper Is it really slander? It's showing off his hypocrisy, where he shows he has double standards. That is, it's not okay for others to simply drop names instead of refuting an argument... but when he does it, suddenly that's perfectly fine.
sonic8005 4 weeks ago
@sonic8005 [It's showing off his hypocrisy] No because 1 there is'nt any hypocrisy and 2 the video contains only declarative statements, not a demonstration about hypocrisy.
MoonwalkerWorshiper 4 weeks ago
@MoonwalkerWorshiper No, it's hypocrisy when you say it's not an argument to do something and then do the exact same thing as an "argument". That's Craig establishing something that isn't an argument and then he does it anyway, despite what he had just said.
This video doesn't but this isn't the Thunderf00t video in question at all. Your point isn't valid.
sonic8005 4 weeks ago
I'm gonna like the video because I have faith it will add one second to the video because I don't like 2:29.
HybridD91 1 month ago in playlist More videos from tooltime9901
I have entertained the thought that Craig should be just neglected. Scientists and famous people should definitely neglect him and not debate him. But ordinately people, youtubers, should deconstruct and expose his fallacious arguments, because not only Craig's fans listen to his videos, but young people who are looking for the 'truth' may get hooked to his 'logic'.
It's not dificult to find faults with Craig's arguments, even I have made some videos doing just that.
dewinthemorning 1 month ago
WLC Fanatic(s) plural? Well, I think there is only one fanatic. "John Leonard", who seems to take it too far some times. There's hardly a "group" of them.
Usually the theists who enjoy WLC just get mad about the fact that internet atheists misrepresent and distort Craig's arguments, without even trying to understand them. Overall, they just academically nitpick them, rather than weigh them out realistically. Typically, thats the complaint, not fanaticism, you hear coming from the WLC camp.
vbfl920 1 month ago
Christopher Hitchens thought Craig was a good philosopher
JaffarDS 1 month ago
@JaffarDS Christopher Hitchens also verbally eviscerated people who made appeals to authority. If you have an argument to make in favor of WLC, then make it. You won't win any points with anyone, by asserting that Hitchens had a favorable opinion of him. Reiterating his arguments and giving him due credit is fine, but don't disrespect the man's memory by committing one of his least favorite fallacies in his name.
t3tsuyaguy1 1 month ago
I agree, no point taking on Willy2Cites arguments with other Christians when you can just hit 'em right in the spirit-nads by quoting 2 scriptures (Mt 24:30-34 and Mk 14:62 throw in Deut 18:22 to show there's no need to fear a false prophet) then label Jesus a false prophet. They scramble for a bit telling you it's the wrong interpretation of scripture, you ask them how it can possibly be otherwise interpreted, reaffirm he's a false prophet, and bam, they're spent. Works for me every time! :D
hadzhere 1 month ago
I dont think WLC can be ignored out of existence.
CognosSquare 1 month ago
Unsubbed. You became really boring.
Petrichor91 1 month ago
WLC PWNES any atheist!
jordan6030 1 month ago
@jordan6030 I've yet to see WLC provide anything except logical fallacies and circular rhetoric. Can you cite anything that WLC actually 'pwned' anyone with?
TheHigherVoltage 1 month ago
@TheHigherVoltage Yeah all his arguments...they make sense! deep down...you know it.
jordan6030 1 month ago
@jordan6030 None of his arguments make any sense to intellectually honest people.
TheHigherVoltage 1 month ago
@TheHigherVoltage I'm intellectually honest...and they make plenty of sense to me...I'm sure there are a lot of other intellectually honest people...maybe in the order of millions that WLC's arguments make sense to. What you really mean is that his arguments don't make sense to atheists.
jordan6030 1 month ago
@jordan6030 if the argument is nonsensical then its nonsensical. logic doesnt change depending on your world view. it isnt subjective. wlc's arguments are bunk, demonstrably so. what you really mean is atheists dont accept the arguments because they are atheists, this may be the case but the fact is that the arguments are false.
JustTrollinAlong 1 month ago
@JustTrollinAlong Ok...what you said is true about logic. Now explain to me how ANY of WLC's arguments are incoherent. Goodluck.
jordan6030 1 month ago
@jordan6030 firstly, i didnt say incoherent, i said false. they are different. we can start with kalam. things dont "begin to exist" everything is simply a rearranging of pre-existing stuff. for things to "begin to exist" would break physical laws, namely, the conservation of energy. you give me one of his arguments, i will refute it. they are easy.
JustTrollinAlong 1 month ago
@JustTrollinAlong In that case your assuming the universe is eternal. Steven Hawking would disagree with you. Even he believes the universe began to exist. I think you need to do a bit more research!
jordan6030 1 month ago
@jordan6030 i think you need to do a bit more thinking, because thats not what im assuming. you clearly didnt understand what i was saying. to say that everything "begins to exist" means that something started to be there, which wasnt there before. all things in the universe are all we know to exist, to say they all have been "caused" to exist is false because the material for their existence has always existed with since the universe existed. so the arguments first premise is false.
JustTrollinAlong 1 month ago
@jordan6030 so again i say, everything in the universe is simply rearranged previously existing material. nothing in the universe "begins" to exist because that would break physical laws. if you are going to attempt refutation of my criticism, then at least try not to straw man. secondly, even if everything in the universe "began" to exist, you cant assume that therefore the universe is the same way. to apply the same reasoning to different scopes is illogical.
JustTrollinAlong 1 month ago
@JustTrollinAlong funny you say physical laws...laws demand a law giver. If you say material is eternal then you say time is eternal. If time is eternal then how did we get to this present point in time? your also suggesting that an infinite number of events have happened in the past prior to the big bang which is philosophically incoherent..ie thats impossible. Your also asserting that mind is derivative of material. I say the opposite!
jordan6030 1 month ago
@jordan6030 I'm sorry, the laws of physics aren't anything like written law whatsoever. The laws are written observations of physics that are always consistent. Matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, merely altered from one state to another.
It's not that said concept is too complicated for you to grasp, it's that you specifically despise that idea as you yourself feel obligated to somehow include the notion of your "law giver".
sonic8005 1 month ago
@sonic8005 first of all..you should be sorry. secondly...I cant understand your second paragraph...it's incoherent. Thirdly I agree that matter and energy cant be created or destroyed...but that is after the big bang event. Matter cant have eternally existed...no scientist in the world believes that.
jordan6030 1 month ago
@jordan6030 Sorry for what? Using too many big words for you? Get a dictionary, it's not gibberish.
The Big Bang is not a creation of matter, stop lying to say it is. "Matter cant have eternally existed"
Yes it can.
"no scientist in the world believes that"
You're just plain wrong on that one.
sonic8005 1 month ago
@sonic8005 well don't say "sorry" then if your going to turn around and say "sorry for what". do you also believe time is eternal as well then? since matter is eternal ofcourse.
jordan6030 1 month ago
@jordan6030 Stop arguing that your opponents simply "believe" these oversimplifications of their arguments.
Matter and energy can change forms, they cannot be created or destroyed. The Big Bang is another state of energy and matter. If you simply cannot understand that then nobody can help you here.
sonic8005 1 month ago
@sonic8005 your an idiot...your suggesting that time is eternal aswell! time can't be eternal!! if you think long and hard enough...you will realise why time cant be eternal...if you give up...ask me and i'll tell you why! really at the end of the day your god is "matter and energy" and you believe mind is derivative of matter and energy. I think the exact opposite.
jordan6030 1 month ago
@jordan6030 It's "you're" not "your" for starters. Idiot.
You're using a "just because" or a "because I said so" position. You also used appeals to authority. You ARE an idiot because you haven't backed up a single thing you said.
Your brain is made of matter, is it not? Without the brain, you cannot have thought. This isn't just phiolosophy or belief, this is established reality of the brain.
You however, WANT to believe that the brain exists because you think, as you just said.
sonic8005 1 month ago
@sonic8005 calling each other idiots wont get you anywhere, and as with most religious pseudo-wannabe-philosophers, jordan just doesnt seem to have the capacity for intellectually honest, rational discourse/discussion, and i think this is in part due to his lacking reading comprehension skills.
JustTrollinAlong 1 month ago
@jordan6030 "if you think long and hard enough...you will realise why time cant be eternal" While there is a "zero-point" of time in the cosmological event known as "the big bang", it is (just like the values of distance, temperature, mass, volume, and every other basic value) a reference point.
None of the evidence provided by science prevents some form of a universe from existing before the universe we live in formed. That universe would have a timescale, ergo...
onijester56 1 month ago
(cont)
Additionally, you presuppose that [your god is "matter and energy"]. What attributes do these PROVEN states (or should it be state? The Quantum level doesn't clearly distinguish them) of existence have that makes them analogous to gods?
They don't display consciousness, they can't macroscopically violate the laws of the universe (the subatomic violations are more-or-less sticking to tendencies which results in greater stability than having absolute conditions), etc.
onijester56 1 month ago
@jordan6030
"you believe mind is derivative of matter and energy. I think the exact opposite."
What? How the hell can matter and energy be derived from a mind? And how the hell can a mind exist without matter and energy?
And with respect to your ridiculously simple, LINEAR, NEWTONIAN notion of time...let me ask you a simple question, see if you can understand it's relevance...how long can you stop time for?
DickJohnson3434 1 month ago
@DickJohnson3434 you misunderstood what jordan was saying, although he clearly didnt have a good enough vocabulary to be using those words, he meant that mind isnt derived from energy and matter. i already attempted to clear up that matter, he has yet to respond. just dont worry about it.
JustTrollinAlong 1 month ago
@DickJohnson3434 because a mind is a conscience - it is not made from matter and energy..pretty simple answer. A mind can also make choices and therefore choose to create. It makes a whole lot more sense this way. you cant stop time once it begins. you believe it never began...therefore how did we reach today? it's logically impossible - ADMIT IT!
jordan6030 4 weeks ago
@jordan6030 "because a mind is a conscience - it is not made from matter and energy"
That's simply not true, no matter how much you wish it was. The mind entirely requires the brain. Evidence confirms this and there has never been any evidence otherwise. This is something that is already proved.
You have to lie to create this position. As if it's either "time began" at a point or "time never moves". That's a false dichotomy and you know it.
sonic8005 4 weeks ago
@sonic8005 So you just agreed that a mind isn't composed of matter and energy - yet it exists! all you said was..it needs the brain to function - which is made of matter and energy. hmmm. Time did begin it's been proven philosophically and scientifically..you did didnt answer my argument.. if time never began - then how did we ever reach today?goodluck trying to crack this one.
jordan6030 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jordan6030 "So you just agreed that a mind isn't composed of matter and energy"
You are directly lying to claim I said something I didn't say whatsoever.
"all you said was..it needs the brain to function - which is made of matter and energy"
Your mind is your brain. You act as though there's some kind of soul or something yet the evidence already shows thoughts are a product of your brain.
Your argument is dishonest. I don't have to say "time never began". False dichotomy
sonic8005 4 weeks ago
@jordan6030 Think about it, if your mind was not made of matter, then damage to your brain would in no way, shape or form, ever effect your mind. Yet it does. If your brain damages, memories are lost, your entire attitude changes, everything about you and the way you think changes. If the mind is separate from your brain then none of that would be true.
"Time did begin it's been proven philosophically and scientifically"
No it isn't. There's no evidence of it, what's your "proof"?
sonic8005 4 weeks ago
@jordan6030
Saying "it's not made from matter and energy" is an entirely baseless assertion which you have done nothing to justify.
"you cant stop time once it begins."
I'm afraid you have a very rudimentary understanding of time. Time is not linear, nor is it absolute. You ABSOLUTELY CAN stop time. Wanna know how? All you have to do is travel at light speed. Therefore, MUCH of the universe hasn't aged.
"how did we reach today?"
LOL, time is NOT linear.
DickJohnson3434 4 weeks ago
@DickJohnson3434 mind is consciousness! consciousness is not made from matter..If you think it does...I cant help you. However I would agree that your brain is made from matter. Even if time is non-linear that makes no difference to the fact of how we got here today given infinite time...you really need to understand it CANT HAPPEN! before you can get to a specific point prior to today..there is always going to be a point to reach before it. PLEASE UNDERSTAND YOU STUPID STUPID ATHEIST!!
jordan6030 4 weeks ago
@jordan6030 Mind and consciousness are products of the brain, like walking and running are products of the legs. Claiming a mind can exist independent of some material network is an entirely baseless, and an entirely useless assertion.
"Even if time is non-linear that makes no difference to the fact of how we got here today given infinite time."
Nobody said infinite. You said beginningless time implies infinite time. That is ridiculous because time is not linear.
DickJohnson3434 3 weeks ago
@DickJohnson3434 I think the opposite - I think the brain is the instrument used by the mind and consciousness to carry out operations/events/thoughts etc. numbers also exist - they are not material entities so this is not a baseless argument. do you believe the universe is eternal? because if you do...don't bother writing back to me.
jordan6030 3 weeks ago
@jordan6030 "I think the brain is the instrument used by the mind and consciousness to carry out operations"
The brain is made of atoms, which are made of particles which are governed by very real physical forces. Saying your mind has the ability to push and pull the atoms in your brain around, making them disobey the fundamental forces of the universe is EXACTLY as ridiculous as thinking that you could drop a ball and "decide" it's going to fall up.
DickJohnson3434 3 weeks ago
@DickJohnson3434 wow...your soo full of wisdom! so why cant the mind carry out the throught processes of the brain USING the laws of physics as a mechanism. what's the problem with that? also...the atoms in my mind are now using "very real physical forces" to tell me that god exists...how would you diagnose that? how would you even assess any truths...after all your a materialistic determinist as an atheist lol
jordan6030 3 weeks ago
@jordan6030
"why cant the mind carry out the throught processes of the brain USING the laws of physics"
The same reason Jesus can't walk on water USING the laws of physics. To walk on water, you must VIOLATE the laws of physics. Maybe Jesus COULD violate the laws of physics and just maybe every thought is a miracle (like you believe), but if we live in a sensible and consistent universe, that just simply isn't the case.
DickJohnson3434 3 weeks ago
@DickJohnson3434 so if you die...and I make all your body parts function again by machines for example - would you come back to life again or no?
jordan6030 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jordan6030 "so if you die...and I make all your body parts function again by machines for example - would you come back to life again or no?"
I would think so. And I would also expect to have all of my memories if the "storage" network in my brain was sufficiently preserved.
DickJohnson3434 3 weeks ago
@jordan6030 "do you believe the universe is eternal? if you do...don't bother writing back to me."
The universe appears to be finite but unbounded.
But if you think the idea of an eternal universe is just too stupid to even talk to me, then you must rank yourself above Einstein, who absolutely did believe in an infinite universe.
Do you think Einstein was just too stupid to grasp your embarrassingly simple assertions about geometric LINES?
DickJohnson3434 3 weeks ago
@DickJohnson3434 what do you mean by finite but unbounded? what about time? do you believe time always existed then - infinitely in the past? Einstein has been proved wrong. Modern day science tells us that the universe has a beginning...why do you have difficulty believing that?
jordan6030 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jordan6030 "Einstein has been proved wrong."
Even though we simply don't know if anything did or could precede the big bang, that was not at all my point about Einstein. My point about Einstein is that your silly statements about infinite geometric lines was well known to Einstein, yet they meant nothing. It took observations of receding galaxies to convince scientists, not one liners about linear infinities.
DickJohnson3434 3 weeks ago
@jordan6030 laws dont demand a law giver, see claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. bald assertions wont do shit. i didnt say material is eternal. get some reading comprehension. again didnt say that. again I DIDNT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT UNIVERSE OR MATERIAL BEING ETERNAL, so im not suggesting anything about infinity. philosophically incoherent? you clearly no very little about true philosophy. the mind is derivative of material, and demonstrably so. look at coma patients.
JustTrollinAlong 1 month ago
@jordan6030 (cont) if the case is that you are in fact lacking in reading comprehension, and verbal discussion is better for you, and if you have a mic, then you can come to a room i frequent where we can have a discussion/debate on the topic. voxli com / pointmanzero
JustTrollinAlong 1 month ago
@jordan6030 His arguments don't hold water with many believers either.
"maybe in the order of millions that WLC's arguments make sense to."
There's the order of millions of Scientologists who's apologetics make sense to them too. It doesn't mean any of it is valid evidence in any intellectually honest evaluation.
WLC preaches to his choir. He makes sense in the same way parents make sense legitimizing Santa to kids - arguments of faith and feelings. presented as somehow valid evidence.
TheHigherVoltage 1 month ago
@TheHigherVoltage Why don't you cut the crap and just tell me what argument you don't agree with.
jordan6030 1 month ago
@jordan6030 All I've ever heard him argue is reworded versions of the same old bull from every theistic religion - We exist, and I have faith a story is real, therefore that storygod is real.
The last WLC argument I heard was a reworded version of the cosmological argument. The same tired old bull.
Once again, I've yet to hear an argument where WLC isn't just preaching to the choir. Can you point me to any argument he's made where he actually proved anything?
TheHigherVoltage 1 month ago
@jordan6030
Does WLC Craig have a single original argument?
DickJohnson3434 1 month ago
@DickJohnson3434 yeah, his 4th and 5th argument he usually presents in his debate. why?
jordan6030 4 weeks ago
I'm kind of hoping ReasonableFaithMinistries sues DrCraigVideos for impersonating Craig.
I mean, WLC prides himself on being really good at debates, but silencing your oponents through abusing legal is pretty much the oposite of that.
dechha1981 1 month ago
I like stick man form. :-(
madjimms 1 month ago
I concur that William Lane Craig's arguments are not worth the time. They are just reformulated versions of the same specious arguments that Christians have been using for centuries. Merely updating the Kalam Cosmological argument with some distorted use of modern cosmology doesn't make the argument from first cause any more cogent, except to those who are duped by the APPEARANCE of sophistication. In any case, we must address those who use DMCA's inappropriately to censor people.
alphacause 1 month ago 2
See one thing Tf00t royally fucked up with was that when he is propagating and repeating this "two citations" chant, is that he has two -scientific- citations. WLC doesn't claim to be a scientist. So WLC could just as well ridicule Tf00t for having 0 citations for philosophical papers. WLC actually has quite a few citations for philosophy, so that point is just void.
That being said, fuck WLC and everything about him, but at least be honest when you go into detail about it
Bleachfanoftheyear 1 month ago
@Bleachfanoftheyear William Lane Craig is no 'philosopher'. He is a charlatan that goes around parading as a 'philosopher'. There's a difference.
SpaceMarineUltra 1 month ago
@Bleachfanoftheyear: The man who stands up and pontificates on the shoeing of horses had best have learned at least which end of the horse the shit comes out of.
RyuDarragh 1 month ago
@Bleachfanoftheyear Articles in philosophy journals are still counted as scientific citations.
prophetchannel 1 month ago
@prophetchannel watch?v=y4DsKM--afw
No. They are not.
Bleachfanoftheyear 1 month ago
@Bleachfanoftheyear Oh, I understand, you are right. Even so, even if thunderf00t was correct in his assertions, I find the number of citations argument itself to be besides the point of the discussion. Thunderf00t should not use nicknames like "two citations". But it still holds that what WLC is doing, at least in his videos, is popular apologetics and not serious religious philosophy.
prophetchannel 1 month ago
@prophetchannel My point exactly :) Glad we agree
Bleachfanoftheyear 1 month ago
You know, WLC studied under John Hick.
JaffarDS 1 month ago
Y U so frequent with videos? first i havaen't hear/seen anything by you and now you post a video every day?
It's cool keep it up! Talk more!
Quiestre 1 month ago
WLC is just a sophist. That's the only reason his audience, that suffers from self-inflicted ignorance, eats it up so much. He does the thinking for them and they don't realize how flawed his arguments are. IMO
Thayer79 1 month ago
I am no fan of William Lane Craig - but at least he engages his opponents in public debate (and, whilst I dislike his arguments - he is very skilled at presenting them).
Fanboy "drcraigvideos" stifles any sort of debate, bans anyone who tried to question him or WLC on his videos & often selectively posts snips of debates out of context with provocative titles ("WLC HUMILIATES Dr. X!")
It is pathetic & also totally hypocritical to stifle debate on the videos of a professional debater...
SAHBfan 1 month ago
That fan if WLC is even more than just a fundie, looking at his comments the guy really is crazy.
Claiming that TF requires permission from him to post the criticisms of WLC? The fact that he admits he claimed copyright and admits he's not the owner of those videos, despite consistently insisting that permission should have been asked of him instead of WLC?
It's almost like one of those obsessed stalker situations...
sonic8005 1 month ago
@sonic8005 He may have legitimately been granted permission to use the material.
Skindoggiedog 1 month ago
@Skindoggiedog He wasn't... when William Lane Craig was mentioning Youtube users... he mentioned this guy's channel and specifically described it as "pirated". Though apparently he didn't file any legal takedown because it had what appeared to be a lot of views.
sonic8005 1 month ago
@sonic8005 Ah yes. It does look like you're right.
Skindoggiedog 1 month ago
Yup. The only thing worth addressing here is the DMCA abuse. Their "arguments" are not worth wasting mental energy on.
rozeboosje 1 month ago
I'm really glad this this wasn't in stick-man form
Seeingglass 1 month ago 21
I'm so glad this wasn't in stick-man form
Seeingglass 1 month ago
In this comment thread and video: Ad homniem.
Nuff said.
JaffarDS 1 month ago
Yawn
ThunderCUNT
WKaliberr 1 month ago
I don't know why theologians are competing with atheists on who can be a bigger dick. I'm sure if I devoted much of my time to the books of WLC and the like I could learn a lot, but when you hear them debate it's not very interesting. Too much simplicity, smug remarks and atheists haven't given any evidence against Christianity remarks. Doesn't sound much better to me than atheists who are to good to even discuss Christian arguments.
RuinSonic 1 month ago
Oh... TF loves having a DMCA. He got more, then he must be very pleased to get more attention.
What is better is to just not even know who this WLC is and not care at all what TF thinks about him. I must be subscribed to you for some reason, but this video isn't it.
GreatG0dOm 1 month ago
The funny thing is this: I barely knew about William L. Craig and how bullshit he and his arguments were... until the did the DMCA on Tf00t. Now everyone and their mother is posting about him.
NeroJoe83 1 month ago
@NeroJoe83 Too many fundies repeat his arguments as if they were solid, but they don't understand them well enough to use their own words or defend them.
But like all such, they reduce to "spot the fallacy" exercises.
They try to generate information out of nothing to make up for the fact that there is none from which to conclude a god - if there were that would be the absent evidence they talk about but never provide, and they wouldn't need fallacious arguments like Craig's.
GWR3440 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NeroJoe83 Craig did not do the DMCA. The channel owner that did, created a Craig channel without Craig's legal permission. Craig will probably distance himself from the channel owner by making him close down his Craig channel for making him look bad.
jessydaytime 1 month ago
no one ends a video as abruptly as you...you are the master!
kalsolarUK 1 month ago
Listening to WLC is like listening to a bad politician. He drones on without ever really saying anything. He starts with a false premise and builds on that. Ignoring any rebuttals. Constantly asserting the same empty false claims. Parrying valid points with redirection like his opponent is not even in the room. It's painful to listen to his "debates". I just refrain.
Einsteinian99 1 month ago
This might seem weird, but as an atheist, I find religious philosophy and theology really engaging. To me, it is like "what would God be like if we assume he exists?". My favorite by far is Kierkegaard's "Frygt og Bæven", but I also enjoy Spinoza, Thomas Aquinas, Hegel (although not reading the primary sources), and Meister Eckhart. Also, I do enjoy oriental religious philosophy, especially the Tao Te Ching and and the Buddhist scriptures. WLC though, is sadly not worthy do be on that list.
prophetchannel 1 month ago
@prophetchannel
I also think theology is interesting. I particularly like Kierkegaard.
Draginvry2 1 month ago
@prophetchannel I do too, for much the same reason I find debates about comic book continuity and LOTR canon fascinating.
Trying to forge a coherent timeline/worldview out of either is an amazing display of mental gymnastics, and I can't help but enjoy the spectacle.
AndrewTheEternal 1 month ago
I agree fully TT.
What has happened specifically due to the WLC 'fanatics' is that they have "personified" Christian apologetics as WLC.
I too am interested in the legalities of the current drama, not because its thunderf00t but because it will hopefully (via the vast amount of subscribers he has both for and against his position) spread the 'what not to do' as far as DMCA'ing goes. Hopefully it will send a shriek down the backs of the morons who live to do it.
LaymanScholar 1 month ago
I'd be willing to support t'foot's legal campaign against WLC's utube channel.
TheWitnessOfCacti 1 month ago
@TheWitnessOfCacti
It's not even WLC's channel, it's just some nutcase. drcraigvideos is a psycho.
Redfingers 1 month ago
WLC still cannot get over the fact that his opponents disagree on the definition of the word atheist. He has to make it a point to whine about it in every single debate. The guy is nuts. He drives me nuts. I can't stand him.
Kalam is stupid, and it's old. The final conclusion is literally "therefore the universe has a cause." Seriously? Come on, dude. I know he's a serious thinker, but that just makes boring through the mountains of casework on these arguments even more tedious and pointless.
Redfingers 1 month ago
"selling manuals"
No doubt his more popular works are written almost like "how-tos" for dealing with non-christians, and a lot of his work does go into debates more than actual scholarship, but I'd encourage people who are serious about philosophy of religion and especially those who are curious about philosophy of time to read his more obscure, I think we can rightly say, scholarly works. Time and Eternity, Philosophical Foundations, and his entry in the Blackwell Companion...
migkillertwo 1 month ago
...were very rigorously argued.
Is he a towering figure in analytic philosophy, like Searle or even Plantinga? Absolutely not, but that he's the most well-known defender of the faith is beyond dispute and critics of Christianity ought to at least thoroughly and fairly evaluate his arguments before writing off Craig the man.
migkillertwo 1 month ago
@migkillertwo
I understand you're an apologist and a fan of WLC, but don't assume we haven't looked at this internet monolith, particularly not when internet apologists are always harping on him.
His arguments? You mean like "even if you defeat all my arguments I still have my subjective experience" argument? His moral argument? His "therefore the universe has a cause therefore god exists" argument?
They may be rigorously argued that, doesn't make them any less ridiculous.
Redfingers 1 month ago
I don't see anything objectionable about those arguments. If you have honest curiosity about these arguments, I'd encourage you to buy his latest "Reasonable Faith" book, or the "Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology" paperback.
migkillertwo 1 month ago
@migkillertwo
I have absolutely no curiosity about those arguments. That's the problem. They're that stupid on their face.
I'm not about to be told by a Christian apologist claiming to be a professional philosopher that his subjective experience should be a serious consideration in an academic debate after all of his arguments have been defeated. That's just silly. You don't see how that's objectionable? Then you're silly. This is basic epistemology, ground zero.
Redfingers 1 month ago
"I have absolutely no curiosity about those arguments."
Well that's certainly not the attitude of a philosopher.
"that his subjective experience"
He was telling others that, if they experienced the holy spirit, that they should still believe in christianity. He never said "I saw X, therefore you should believe me"
Again, I'd encourage you to honestly and thoroughly evaluate the arguments. They can be found in his latest "reasonable faith" book.
migkillertwo 1 month ago
@migkillertwo
Well, bro, I really hate to intrude on your srs bsns internet philosophy bubble, but I'm not a serious philosopher, I'm just a dude with a niggling bit up his ass about religion.
That doesn't mean you can't masturbate to copies of Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, but it does mean I don't really give a shit, because frankly if someone's going to tell me that I should take subjective experience seriously, it sure as fuck isn't gonna be William Lane Craig.
Redfingers 1 month ago
Well there's clearly no point in trying to have an honest conversation with you.
Good day, sir.
migkillertwo 1 month ago
@migkillertwo
Honest is a stretch
later hoss
Redfingers 1 month ago
Good view on the situation and I am happy to see a philophy student who wants to become a philosophy professor take this....pseudo philosopher and basically call bullshit.
Anyway, I hope TF DOES sue him, I hope he sued him for TONS of money, and I hope TF does not let this asshole off the hook like he did VFX. I hope TF makes this asshole homeless through the court system.
jay666KJ 1 month ago
I truly despise the guy who runs drcgraigvideos (John Leonard) more than dr craig & tf00t combined.
That guy deserves to have his channel closed so he can taste a lil of his own medicine. You can't go around youtube threatening to close people's channel by false flagging other people's opinion on his idol.
MkUltraV01 1 month ago
Well I guess we can all take comfort in the fact that Craig and this John Leonard chap are not collaborating in any way?
migkillertwo 1 month ago
@migkillertwo "Well I guess we can all take comfort in the fact that Craig and this John Leonard chap are not collaborating in any way?"
If I disliked craig's arguments then I'm going to be extremely disgusted at his character if it turns out he's associated with the drcraigvideos guy.
MkUltraV01 1 month ago
What is truly unbearable about Craig is not so much that he is using idiotic arguments, or that he circumlocutes, or that he attacks strawmen, what is unbearable is that he wins fucking arguments that way because of how shitty his opponents' debate skills are. What is so obnoxious about Craig is that TheoreticalBullshit can completely split his entire case apart anally, and yet he's still winning debates with the same case he wrote, evidently anyway, 20 years ago.
Redfingers 1 month ago
TBS constructed these arguments himself, and for that he deserves enormous credit. There are no "canned responses" that you can use against him, but knowing a thing or two about metaphysics, epistemology, and the rest of analytic philosophy will show that his arguments are mostly fallacies of equivocation.
migkillertwo 1 month ago
If not fallacies of equivocation, they lead to vicious infinite regresses. Amazingly, he admitted that the assumptions in his counter-argument lead to vicious regresses, to which he responded that it was not a problem.
migkillertwo 1 month ago
@migkillertwo
Honestly, I really haven't a clue about TBS' arguments and I'm willing to bet you've devoted a significant amount of time to them, so I can't say much on that.
But I can say that I don't find WLC's arguments, even rigorously argued as they are, compelling enough to "thoroughly and fairly evaluate his arguments" before writing him off. He literally appeals to subjectivity in debates in academic settings. He begins every debate by agonizing over strawman definitions.
Redfingers 1 month ago
"Honestly, I really haven't a clue about TBS' arguments and I'm willing to bet you've devoted a significant amount of time to them, so I can't say much on that"
That's too bad. TBS and I converse regularly on facebook about his arguments.
migkillertwo 1 month ago
Why not Thunderf00t fanatics vs WLC fanatics?
acceptjesusorburn 1 month ago
And I'm pretty sure his followers are unbearable retards for the same reason that Kent Hovind or "Lord" Monckton followers are unbearable retards - their followers are unbearable retards. It has nothing to do with the person, really, it's just the type of person that latches onto philosophers and professional debaters. It makes people feel special and like they can live vicariously through someone else's public performances.
Redfingers 1 month ago
I'm pretty sure WLC markets himself as a philosopher because he has a doctorate on philosophy and a doctorate of theology from legitimate, old European universities. And I'm pretty sure he's a pretentious, unbearable ass because he has absolutely assraped prestigious scholars and academicians in various fields in public debates at academic institutions, including universities.
Granted, his arguments are fucking pathetic third rate internet tripe, but the above is still true.
Redfingers 1 month ago
@Redfingers yep ,I've got serious reservation about philosophy .I mean ,he'd not be the first guy I've heard talking convoluted twaddle under the guise of philosophy ,you're correct he does have a doctorate in philosophy I assume the bar must be set very low
sausage4mash 1 month ago
@sausage4mash
The guy is very, very smart, and very rigorous, he's just an asshole who happens to be a very good stand up debater.
He really shouldn't reflect poorly on philosophy as a discipline, it's more the state of the institution. In a nutshell, I think the vast majority of serious intellectuals have moved on to mathematics and science, largely because most questions of metaphysics have, for all intents and purposes, realistically been accomplished already.
Redfingers 1 month ago
when someone feels the need to puff themselves up i remember what my father would say "ye must blow his own horn, lest it not get blown"...i also appreciated thunderf00t's video regarding the source (in question)of the DMCA posted today, also...
practicalmagic9 1 month ago
It's not only TF00t and the arguments. It's also the DMCA approach which I loathe with a passion.
StopSpamming1 1 month ago
I don't think TF's argument was that good, he is just jumping on an old bandwagon that was better done by people like TheoreticalBullshit, dewinthemorning, Th1sWasATriumph and a bunch of others. TF just happens to have the biggest channel, not the best arguments.
zarkoff45 1 month ago
Yes. WLC is bad for apologetics and apologetics is bad for Christianity.
theowarner 1 month ago
Also, you're the one talking about interesting discussion? Is that why you employed pure fallacious reasoning in this video? Ridiculous sir, ridiculous!
JaffarDS 1 month ago
He's written a ton on philosophy of time. I hope you're kidding
JaffarDS 1 month ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Oh fuck you people - look at my latest vids. - unsubbed
IzzySpeaks 1 month ago
@IzzySpeaks hey, I didnt mirror it and I also said its a waste of time.
tooltime9901 1 month ago 9
@IzzySpeaks BAWWWWW!
shrikechan 1 month ago
@IzzySpeaks
LoL!!!
Is your line of argument really that people who post videos shouldn't post videos?
BusinessIDBAI 1 month ago
@BusinessIDBAI most people who speak the loudest have altogether too little to say.
IzzySpeaks 1 month ago
@IzzySpeaks
Well said, you should take that advice to heart. lol
BusinessIDBAI 1 month ago
he steals his arguments from al ghazali
0ptimusbibIe 1 month ago
You sound a bit unwell, Peter. Are you doing OK?
FarBeyondSYL 1 month ago
WLC has always seemed rather unintellectual to me. he is just smart enoug to make what he says sould convincing which leads me to believe he is dishonest
keggerous 1 month ago
@keggerous
He always struck me as used-car-salesman smart.
tipoomaster 1 month ago
Comment removed
drowninginferno 1 month ago
hi
RoCkErX285 1 month ago
@RoCkErX285 hi how r u
Arbfor 1 month ago