"Hi ppl, I'm not only smart, I'm a profesional smarty, so everthing I say must be smartysmart."
He's just setting up an argument from authority and presents himself as said authority. gotta be pretty full of yourself to do that AS YOUR FUCKING OPENING!!!!
@Skoenner I noticed that Christopher Hitchens never opened up a debate with "As a professional author I ...." The man didn't need to create a phony sense of competence; he *demonstrated* his competence through his arguments.
Craig's conclusions about the existence of god were settled when he committed his life to Christ by faith. It isn't possible for him to "think" in a way that contradicts his faith.
Craig's arguments therefore are designed to reach a audience that already agreed with his world-view after the fact.
He serves as a front-man for crazy Christians who want to distance themselves from really crazy Christians. Nothing more.
Hmm, I'm not sure. I sometimes say that I work with audio (production) professionally (which I do), when I'm having a debate with some rank amateur hifi-idiot or someone from the iPod crowd who thinks they know everything. Yes, perhaps it's a bit of an argument from authority, but when the amateur refuses to understand even the basics, it's the easiest way to basically say "You have no clue what you're talking about, go educate yourself and we can continue discussing something meaningful".
@NBM397 I was just tempted to comment with a similar reply as you did, and you beat me to it.
I am a professional visual artist with 32 years of professional experience on my CV. And when confronted with the, often enthusiastic and well-meant, waffle of the amateur sunday-painter who just completed a night-class in life-drawing basics, I am tempted a lot to bark a stark rejection...
And yes, before the occasional college-lecture, gallery speech, et cetera, I introduce myself as 'professional'.
there is a lot wrong with this guys argument but that is probably the one thing you cant dispute he is a professional (people PAY HIM TO TALK AND SIT AND LISTEN TO HIM) and this clip wasted my time ty sir
@ArticX professional speaker, professional author, professional showman.. not really a scientist or philosopher of any merit. Those titles are earned not through popularity or financial success but through the respect and recognition of academia.
@antonc81 a person that can not be a speaker, an author, and a showman, has little chance to influence academia (this fool has so much influence because he MASTERS all 3 of those concepts) a scientist a philosopher of merit will decay in his field if he is not able to present the topic so that the listener,the reader, and the audience can understand (ignoring the importance of this concepts is very counter productive) If anything his level of professionalism should be adapted by most scientists.
"a person that can not be a speaker, an author, and a showman, has little chance to influence academia"
- we observe the exact opposite most scientists are not professional debaters by any stretch of the imagination nor are scientific claims settled through public debate
"If anything his level of professionalism should be adapted by most scientists"
- last time i checked making bullshit claims that fail to meet the scientific burden of proof and then instead trying to win over the less educated general public wasnt 'professional'
@types10000 i see that in all his other videos yet this one does not show that, it is not his arguments that this video is attacking it is his presentation. professionalism is at least in sports considered a financial claim your are not a professional football play in high school unless you accept a pay off for playing (legal implications etc look it up yourself) might want to look up the meaning of professional (he is being payed for his lecture)
@ArticX Incorrect. A successful philosopher or scientist has to be able to publish research in peer reviewed journals, mostly aimed at other academics in his field - full of technical language and references to things only others in the field understand. The names and faces of most of the world's most important and influential scientific researchers are unknown outside their field, and their writing and speeches are incomprehensible to the layman.
@antonc81 His field is not the academics you and I respect it is the theological circle. Nonetheless if people are willing to sit and listen to him talk for hours then I assume some of them do take him serious enough(wish they did not). The debates are for the layman(investor and the reader). I do research and if it was not for my ability to convey my ideas to others then I would never get funding (from the laymen). As for recognition all theological debates use the same ideas that he uses.
@antonc81 "Being a professional speaker can be something to strive for. But it's unnecessary for academic research." To research you need money saying this is just ignorant. if saying your a professional gets the audience attention (which it does) then it is one powerful tool and there are no reasons that can justify not using it...he is not lying he does have a degree and he does get payed for doing what he does he is published in his circle of study (theology) and does appeal to the listener.
"To research you need money saying this is just ignorant"
- what's ignorant is your assumption that research grants are granted through verbal debate as opposed to prior awards and the merits of the research (as ascertained through the scientific literature)
"if saying your a professional gets the audience..."
- salutering a goat on stage would also likely get the audiences attention however is no more a valid argument. Appealing to any authority (even his own) is a logical fallacy
@types10000 never did i say debate, the scientific literature requires guidelines to be met before you are published (certain formats, labeling of data, organization, etc.) if you can not professionally present this data you are not a good scientist (if your co-workers cant understand your work you are useless)...yes a goat on stage would get the audience (not a bad idea) but i rather use a joke little less wtf...what would you prefer?..."is a logical fallacy"...yes but they work so well!
"..yes a goat on stage would get the audience (not a bad idea) but i rather use a joke little less wtf...what would you prefer?"
- the attention-seeking nature of his claim wasnt the only parrelel i drew: the argumentative significance of him declaring himself a professional is equal to slaughting a goat on stage also.
"'is a logical fallacy'...yes but they work so well!"
- it's not good practise and he should be scrutinized for it.
@types10000 "...slaughting a goat on stage.." Little too dramatic (lamb chops!)
"...scrutinized.."
maybe if everything around us was rational, but if you are realistic you will be more successful in life if you admire practices that prove successful.
Try it...walk into a bar say: HI, I am lion-tamer. vs Hi, Let me tell you some FACTS that I can cite.
"maybe if everything around us was rational, but if you are realistic you will be more successful in life if you admire practices that prove successful."
- he used a logical fallacy in debate, just because his audience is too stupid to realize this does not mean he should be free from the scrutiny of those who can recognise it.
- this is one of the many reasons science isnt decided by appeals to the ignorant masses.
@types10000 calling someone a lier, thief,cheat without proof in a book and you will be subjected to legal prosecution...if aliens existed then they could/would be able to take you to court for defamation...you can say santa was responsible for 9/11 but santa is not real so you would be safe...common sense
@types10000 him being a professional or not is not the subject of the debate(at least i don't think he ever debated this) but a bank account statement would have won him that debate nonetheless
"he is not lying he does have a degree and he does get payed for doing what he does he is published in his circle of study (theology) "
- his fantasies about the how life could have arisen are not published and his credentials as a scientist do not give any credence to these unevidenced propositions.
Whether a claim is scientific is determined by it's adherence to the scientific method and the scientific burden of proof, not by whether the person making it happens to be a scientist
- books are opinion pieces that are not subject to a burden of proof.
"nope never said he is a scientist...a philosopher of theology (what his credentials say)"
- then what burden of proof are these claims subject to?
"rhetorical yes?"
- no not really, you said he made publications and i'm asking where and what burden of proof was used. if none was used then what is your basis for ascertaining their credibility?
@types10000 no books are not opinions there is a reason defamation exists...what burden of proof i do not know and neither do you...i have not read any of his publications and there are no lawsuits against him. philosophical claims require very little burden of proof... nonetheless claiming there is none without reading his work for yourself is dishonest (the catholic church used to do this...look up Galileo)
"no books are not opinions there is a reason defamation exists"
- defamation relates to insults regarding a specific individual AND SAYS NOTHING about the integrity of claims contained in the book eg. if he wanted to claim 9/11 as perpetrated by aliens he would be able to do so, and irrespective of whether his claims could be proven absolutely wrong he would not be forced to print a retraction.
they are opinion pieces that are not subject to a burden of proof.
- regardless of whether some of his PUBLICATIONS (a general term that also includes scientific papers) his BOOKS have not been (refer to previous post)
"nonetheless claiming there is none without reading his work for yourself is dishonest "
- INCORRECT, reading a given piece of material will tell me NOTHING about whether the CLAIMS have SUBJECT TO A BURDEN OF PROOF (which given the fact it's an ordinary non-academic book we know they havnt)
@types10000 Kripke semantics is the basis for his argument 1000s of citations and sources exist for this in philosophical peer review...and accepted in philosophy
"Kripke semantics is the basis for his argument 1000s of citations and sources exist for this in philosophical peer review...and accepted in philosophy"
Then where are these alleged publications and what burden of proof have they been subjected to???
What benchmark have they passed to establish their credibility?
@types10000 just did a Google scholar search on him and he has many peer review articles...so no not just books...insulting others without any basis got old in middle school...the logical fallacy is defending a guy i don't care for to someone that is less intelligent
@antonc81 the standard of prof in his field is not that of the scientific field. this is a theological debate this guys talk about the eye in the sky. saying i am a professional is what the issue is REALLY! it is not the fact that he is talking about the invisible dictator...merry xmass
@antonc81 there is a reason peer review and scientific publications require strict guidelines before publishing any research study. true the fact checking is one of those reasons but also for the research to be productively used it must be understood for the audience therefore calling this guy a professional speaker and implying that it is not something to strive for is ignorant.
@ArticX I really think you've missed the point of this video. I never implied someone shouldn't strive to be a professional. It's about *announcing to the audience* that you are a professional. That's what's funny. I have never heard a scientist at a scientific conference start off with, "As a professional scientist, I blah blah blah." If I did I, and the the whole room, would chuckle.
@ozmoroid credentials are always presented in any and all formal presentations if you went into a room not introducing yourself and started lecturing me on philosophy or science (economics etc.) i would walk out (and i hope you would do the same). there is no serious scientific paper or conference that does not state the name of the author, occupation, position held at a university, industry or laboratory.
@ArticX The problem is that this isn't really a credential, and here it is clearly an appeal to authority, not a way to present himself: "I am a professional philosopher, hear me out, trust everything I say, no need to check anything I say, it's pure truth", that's all he does.
@ArticX Maybe it's a language/cultural issue, but you aren't hearing what I'm saying. Calling yourself a "professional" is simply hilarious. It's about that word, not about having credentials. I've presented papers at scientific conferences for decades, published in several journals, peer reviewed papers, sat on NASA & NSF review panels and I've never seen anyone ever refer to him/herself as a "professional." I would laugh out loud if that happened. It would sound so phony.
@ArticX Yes but a professional scientist never pretends to be a professional horseman. So a professional show-pony with no academic recognition should be careful about representing himself as a professional in an academic discipline. Professional speaker? Sure, and I commend his presentation skills. Professional anything else?.. well show me how many respecteded academics have cited his work and I'll think about acknowledging it.
@ozmoroid this are stuff we learn in preschool (hi my x. i just moved here from y. (teacher says class say hello to x)..etc.) the man is arrogant likes the sound of his voice yet your not attacking that your attacking a presentation which for him fits with both his personality and his view point (all speakers are told to be themselves when they lecture so i fail to see his mistake)
@ArticX Being a professional speaker can be something to strive for. But it's unnecessary for academic research. You only need the understanding of your peers. The man tries to present himself as a professional in something other than showmanship... which simply isn't true. Showmanship and public presentation are the only fields in which he is a professional. His philosophy is amateurish and his scientific knowledge is demonstrably non existant.
@antonc81 attacking his argument would be far more thought provoking and useful rather then developing some lame rhetoric to insult him. i have read scientific publishing that at times would benefit if only some of those philosophers and scientists would take an English class. WLC's argument is bad enough and can be broken down to a comical without resulting to a video like this.
I know it's the cool thing among some of you new atheists to talk crap about Craig. But I'm sorry, you only end up looking stupid when you say things like "He'z no really a philosopherz. Derp!" The dude holds a PhD in Philosophy from Birmingham and has written countless peer-reviewed articles in philosophical journals.
It's hilarious how Willy Craig is making these "critical thinkers" nuts...
"Hey look! he made a vague creationist remark/apparently contradicted himself/dared to imply that you ought to know the subject we're naively invading with our randi ass deductions!"
"Let's edit that out and make an angry, loopy hate vid!"
I was unaware that every video criticizing WLC should address every point he ever made. This is a simple video displaying how Craig avails himself to his "authority" as a "professional philosopher" to hide how weak his arguments are (and as a license to straw man the hell out of opposing points of view).
I will grant that I'd rather the video elaborated more on this with other (plentiful) examples of Craig engaging in such practices, but your "criticism" is obviously mindless.
In a few centuries, after advanced genetic engineering is universal and all humans are smarter than Einstein ever was, young children will watch archived drivel from the likes of WLC and marvel in amazement at the daft lack of rational faculty, the dishonestly deliberate credulity, and the asinine smug pretensions of such apologists. Ultimately he'll only be remembered as an example of the worst kind of dangerous egocentric irrationality that our species was lucky enough to survive.
WLC: A vile, bile-spewing simpleton. A delusional, willfully ignorant fucktard with a masters degree in ass-hattery and deceit. Probably not addicted to amphetamines and intercourse with Ted Haggard.
And now a professional philosopher too!
Are there no limits to what WLC can do?
(apart from tell the difference between reality and magical fairy tales with pixies, gum drop trees and talking snakes!)
Well the thing with philosophy is that you can 'prove' anything. Provided certain conditions are met, which usually remain untested. Sure you can 'prove' god by postulating things you can't verify. But the lengths at which this talking cunt is willing to go to even argue for a Christian god and to make that god look perfect and moral, is just astounding. What an irony, to be so dishonest in order to defend something that he believes is the truth and a basis of morality. A nasty little sophist.
Being a professional philosopher is like being a professional salesman. You need someone to buy your shit to remain professional. It doesnt mean your shit works.
@unamaxify The former - his brain is compartmentalized. I don't see WLC as being a knowingly evil, deceitful guy. He seems fairly nice; he just doesn't realize how sophomoric and lame his arguments with respect to god are. We should all remember WLC's most direct claim about his belief, the one in which he says that it is based on being a "witness of the holy spirit" and that that gives him a "self-authenticating" method of knowing the Bible is right "outside of the evidence."
@unamaxify It's the last option. WLC is a used car salesman for christianity. He is paid to spread the bullshit on as thick as he can scoop it to keep the dumb asses who don't want to think for themselves in the pews. If he actually convinced a skeptic using his "philosophical" arguments, then that person really wasn't a skeptic.
i agree with you on what he does, but he could do all this stuff just as well as a true believer. I tend to think just as you do that he is a shifty salesman.
However this is because i can't imagine how it would feel like living with such contradictions in my head. There is empirical evidence that people can hold contradicting believes.
@DrOman5596 Ad populum, false dichotomy, appeal to ignorance, appeal to authority, some of which can be found in this video which was found by using the search bar youtube.com/watch?v=abUVk65R-gc
Also, I can tell you've never actually used the search bar up top to find videos critiquing him, do you just swallow everything he says verbatim?
@infinity730 I was going to say that the fact that you posted that video makes it more likely that you swallow criticisms of him verbatim, but it was interesting that you didn't list ad hominem. If you were able to spot that the author of that clip falsely applied ad hominem, why were you unable to spot that ad populum was also falsely applied? His statements would be fallacious if he used them to conclude that God exists, but he doesn't. List an argument and explain the fallacy
@DrOman5596 Craig uses Kalam a lot, which is an appeal to ignorance.
He also likes to shift the burden of proof by saying "atheists are trying to disprove the existence of god".
"His statements would be fallacious if he used them to conclude that God exists"
Craig has said many times that the arguments he presents aren't contingent on his belief in god. Basically saying that even if you prove all his arguments wrong, he'll still believe.
@infinity730 Look at the arguments premises p1 everything that begins to exist has a cause, and p2, the universe began to exist. The conclusion that the u. must have a cause is justified from 1 and 2. There is no appeal to ignorance. You might disagree with the evidence supporting p1 and p2, but Kalam is logically valid as an argument. He does say that his belief isn't contingent on his personal belief, but he doesn't incorporate that into an argument or use that as justification.
@DrOman5596 My personal objection to Kalam is more in the vain of stating that "beginning to exist" is not only vague, but potentially incoherent, considering scientific observation, but that's beside the point. It's an appeal to ignorance because it posits that if "I" can't answer how the universe "began" to exist, than it must be his narrow interpretation of the christian god.
TBS does a good summation of the main problems with this argument in this video: /watch?v=fRn-mVPIl60
@infinity730 I have seen that video. TBS is one of the atheists I like on youtube, though I think he's too quick to assume malevolent motives on Craigs part. You might be interested to know that Craig directly responded to that TBS clip in his article, "Must Everything that Begins to Exist Have a Material Cause?" and further elaborates in "Must the Universe Have a Material Cause?"
@DrOman5596 Yes I followed that back-and-fourth between them. Craig straw-manned his position fairly well enough to squirm out of that one. Still, I've never seen Craig connect the dots between the deistic god of Kalam, and his christian viewpoint.
@infinity730 And what might the phrase "their position" be referring to? That the only God is Allah and Muhammad is his prophet? al-Ghazzālī certainly never claimed that the KCA proved this fact when he created the argument. Is "their position" the fact that an immaterial first cause of the material universe exists? That's not just "their" position but the position of many religions. And since it's not just "their position", people of other faiths use the KCA.
@TheAntiEgalitarian I said "reaffirm their position" the most important part of that was that it was used to "reaffirm" not to prove their position, the argument appeals to those that already believe. "Their position" refers to their belief in a god. I posted my personal objections to the argument in an earlier comment.
Followup question:
"the fact that an immaterial first cause of the material universe exists"
@infinity730 Only a pedant could be concerned with such things, but fine. "al-Ghazzālī certainly never claimed that the KCA reaffirms this belief when he created the argument." Better now? Now what are we suppose to derive from the fact that Jews, Christians, and Muslims all use the KCA to "reaffirm" there beliefs? What is entailed by this fact? It certainly doesn't demonstrate that argument is invalid or that it's premises are false. Your statement just seems like a red herring.
@TheAntiEgalitarian "al-Ghazzālī certainly never claimed..." Then what purpose does the argument serve? It certainly doesn't prove anything, the wording is sloppy, and the (many) conclusions don't follow from the premise.
"what are we suppose to derive"
I just said, the argument appeals to those that already believe, but is looked at by skeptics as not only bad, but potentially incoherent.
Even if I agree with the deist creator god of Kalam, it doesn't prove Christianity.
@infinity730 "Then what purpose does the argument serve?" To prove that an immaterial first cause of the universe exists, a doctrine that Judaism, Christianity, Islam and many religions share. That is why people from different religions use it, the same way two physicists, one who says the geometry of the universe is hyperbolic, another that it is elliptic, might use the same argument against the 5th postulate. It is NOT meant to prove or reaffirm or even address any other doctrine of Islam.
@infinity730 All it needs is an additional premise and a rewording: 1) For all x, if x begins to exist, then x has a cause. 2) The entirety of material existence began to exist. 3) If the entirety of material existence has a cause, then the cause is immaterial. C) Ergo, the cause of the entirety of material existence is immaterial.
1) (x) (Bx-->Cx)
2) Bm
3) Cm-->Ic
4) Bm-->Cm 1, UI
5) Cm 2,4,MP
6) Ic 3,5,MP
P.S. The entirety of material existence refers to all space-time, matter, and energy.
@infinity730 The existence of a given object is not contingent on either you or I recognizing its existence. Since you cling to the dogma of physicalism there is admittedly nothing that both of us believe to exist and be immaterial. Although I would say that most people intuitively know that consciousness, although a product of physical causes in the brain, cannot be reduced to a physical entity. For arguments see "What is it like to be a bat?" (Nagel) and "What Mary didn't know" (Jackson).
@infinity730 "No it is contingent on whether or not it can be demonstrated to exist." Even that isn't true. Even if humans went extinct before the Earth was demonstrated to revolve around the sun by Copernicus that wouldn't make heliocentrism is false. Belief should be withheld until there is evidence to determine a belief to be true or false, but that doesn't mean the belief would have been false if it had never been verified.
So the only options to every claim is either outright acceptance or vehement denial?
I said withhold belief, not believe something different.
Neither option had been demonstrated to be true, so in that case I wouldn't believe either one. The nature of that example is highly suspicious, a better choice would be Russel's Teapot.
@infinity730 "I said withhold belief, not believe something different." I never claimed you said that we should believe something else. I said you said "[The existence of a given object] is contingent on whether or not it can be demonstrated to exist."
@infinity730 physicalism(sic)" That is spelled correctly. It is a doctrine in philosophy. Google it. If you added "(sic)" because you do not in fact hold to physicalism then fine, my bad. Most of what you have said indicated that you did believe in physicalism. "Intuition is not a valid system of demonstrating knowledge." Never said it was. That's why I directed you to two papers for arguments.
@TheAntiEgalitarian Im not a fan of philosophy, the only one I trust to demonstrate knowledge would be methodological naturalism, a sub-category of empiricism.
@infinity730 UV light, infrared light, wind, and non-existence look exactly the same to a human without the aid of technology. Just because something cannot be detected by human sight doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Something can be inferred to exist through the other four senses or as a theoretical explanation for some other observation.
@infinity730 You have demonstrated that you can't fucking read. I said they look the same as non-existence to a human unaided by technology, not they are immaterial. I recognize they are made up of material objects. Again, you can't fucking read.
@infinity730 You have demonstrated that you can't fucking read. I said they look the same as non-existence to a human unaided by technology, not they are immaterial. I recognize they are made up of material objects. Again, you can't fucking read. The point is that your implied assertion that "if something can't be detected visually then it doesn't exist" if false. I was not arguing that these things are immaterial. Again, you can't fucking read.
@DrOman5596 "but he doesn't incorporate that into an argument or use that as justification"
Why wouldn't he present his contingent argument, if he has one, for all to see? You would think that he'd stop using the same tired old arguments and bring out the big guns, what he himself finds to be convincing. Right? But sadly, no.
Well the fact that you are posing this question lets me assume that you didn't recieve any abstract logic education, that will make it nesscesairy for me to do extensive explaining in oder to make the the logical fallacies of Craig visible to you.
I'm too lazy to do that.
however here are some examples of craig using logical fallacies
@unamaxify The fact that you posted that video makes your condescension towards me hilarious. It would take extensive explaining indeed for that video. Even rabid internet atheists recognize that it is flawed. Craig wasn't using any of the statements he made in that video in support of any argument or position. You're the one with the doctorate in symbolic logic. List an argument that Craig makes and identify which logical fallacy he uses.
@unamaxify "I said "some examples of craig using logical fallacies" Keep digging. The statements he makes in that video would only be fallacious if he used them to conclude that he was right an atheists were wrong. Again, you're the expert, I'm not asking for an essay, just one argument that Craig uses, and one logical fallacy which that argument uses.
@DrOman5596 here's one: he asserts that the universe has a cause, then he makes claims for features of that cause without justification (timeless, immaterial, etc.)
also known as argumentum ad ignoratium. hope this helps.
@playadominical He doesn't assert that the universe has a cause, he concludes it deductively from two premises. I think his justification for the properties of the cause is quite good. The cause of space time reality couldn't be composed of anything within space time reality, an eternal cause rendering a temporal effect is plausibly personal etc, he certainly doesn't assert the traits it without justification, and even if he did, I'm not sure how it would commit that fallacy
@DrOman5596 deduction doesn't work when the premises aren't true. in this case, the premises are not even likely true, they are just guesses. so that means his deductive argument amounts to a guess as well.
@playadominical Well the original topic was whether or not he used logical fallacies. Whether or not the premises are true is another question. On that I'll just say that his justification of the premises is far more rigorous than you give him credit for
Is the joke supposed to be that philosophy isn't an academically oriented and worth pursuing ? If so , someone needs familiarize himself with actual peer reviewed content.
@SonytoBratsoni I believe the joke is that those who study philosophy professionally actually study and discuss philosophy at a high level. They don't merely repackage Christian apologetics into the apparent structure of logical argument and then hand-wave their way past obvious failures of cogency.
As you say, "someone needs to familiarize himself with actual peer reviewed content" -- "someone" = William Lane Craig.
@TheHogTieChamp Your accusation about him not being familiar with peer reviewed content shows that it's probably you who doesn't know about peer reviewed content. The youtube clips that you've seen him in represent a microscopic portion of his career. Go to his website reasonable faith under "scholarly articles" and you'll find dozens of responses to peer reviewed objections.
@SonytoBratsoni The joke is the one that Steve Martin is playing on. Jokes are either funny or not funny. Period. He makes the hilarious claim to be a "professional comedian" as if his jokes therefore *have to be* funny. Likewise for a philosophical argument. I don't care if WLC is paid by someone to be a "professional" philosopher. His arguments are either sound or not.
@ozmoroid Isn't this objection rather redundant ? Essentially this can be extended to any pursuit , you are either effective in philosophy , literature , art , science , military , sports etc or you aren't .
The speaker , to me , didn't seem to imply that due to his professional status he would be effective in delivering . Perhaps , he was saying that because of his training he would , probabilistically , be more efficient.
@SonytoBratsoni Based on the W.L.C. presentations I've seen, I think it's a weak appeal to authority which I find funny. And, yes, if someone tried to impress me by saying they were a "professional artist" I would probably chuckle. Just show me your art - I'll decide if it's impressive.
@AllOtherNamesTaken2 of course, philosophy also has journals and philosophers publish peer reviewed papers all the time. the standards themselves are often reviewed, so it's not something you will be able to understand by reading the comments on a youtube video. if you aren't familiar with philosophy, you should take an intro course or read some Plato to get started.
@playadominical I did take a course and I've read Nietzsche and Hume for fun in my free time. I thought most of it was bullshit and since everyone disagrees I couldn't imagine a peer review process. When scientists have peer review they actually have things called math and empirical evidence which lets them figure out who is right and who is wrong. Obviously the peer review process in philosophy is much less efficient, whatever it is.
@AllOtherNamesTaken2 the peer review process in philosophy examines the arguments and considers a number of things, like whether the argument is valid or strong, whether the proposed theory makes useful predictions, whether these predictions can be validated by observation or other forms of justification, and so on. philosophy is not just "stating a view", it's an activity, and so there are right ways to do it and wrong ways to do it. the peer review process attempts to sort this out.
@ozmoroid I'm surprised this video hasn't been DMCAed by the usual suspect yet (yep, singlular suspect). Did I just jinx you?
tandooriconnection 3 weeks ago
For a proffesional philosopher he makes some really rudementry errors.
angrydead 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If William Lane Craig is a good professional philosopher I am God. Now go build more cathedrals for me. You guys have been lazy lately.
MrG0TH1ER 2 months ago
Comment removed
MrG0TH1ER 2 months ago
"Hi ppl, I'm not only smart, I'm a profesional smarty, so everthing I say must be smartysmart."
He's just setting up an argument from authority and presents himself as said authority. gotta be pretty full of yourself to do that AS YOUR FUCKING OPENING!!!!
.
Skoenner 2 months ago
@Skoenner I noticed that Christopher Hitchens never opened up a debate with "As a professional author I ...." The man didn't need to create a phony sense of competence; he *demonstrated* his competence through his arguments.
ozmoroid 2 months ago
Craig's conclusions about the existence of god were settled when he committed his life to Christ by faith. It isn't possible for him to "think" in a way that contradicts his faith.
Craig's arguments therefore are designed to reach a audience that already agreed with his world-view after the fact.
He serves as a front-man for crazy Christians who want to distance themselves from really crazy Christians. Nothing more.
That's his profession.
HellRehab 2 months ago
Just because someone is paid to do something doesn't mean they're doing it correctly.
tdietz20 2 months ago
Hmm, I'm not sure. I sometimes say that I work with audio (production) professionally (which I do), when I'm having a debate with some rank amateur hifi-idiot or someone from the iPod crowd who thinks they know everything. Yes, perhaps it's a bit of an argument from authority, but when the amateur refuses to understand even the basics, it's the easiest way to basically say "You have no clue what you're talking about, go educate yourself and we can continue discussing something meaningful".
NBM397 2 months ago
@NBM397 I was just tempted to comment with a similar reply as you did, and you beat me to it.
I am a professional visual artist with 32 years of professional experience on my CV. And when confronted with the, often enthusiastic and well-meant, waffle of the amateur sunday-painter who just completed a night-class in life-drawing basics, I am tempted a lot to bark a stark rejection...
And yes, before the occasional college-lecture, gallery speech, et cetera, I introduce myself as 'professional'.
studioROT 2 months ago
wish i was a professional lurker. only got hired part time.
overlordcacius 2 months ago in playlist Favorite videos
@ArticX lol, this clip wasted a whole 44 seconds of your time haha. How much more time did you waste making that comment?
ssimon64 2 months ago
I can't hate enough the people who say they have had their time wasted. No one fucking forced you to watch the video!
Anyway, funny video. Thumbs up.
Parabol0086 2 months ago
there is a lot wrong with this guys argument but that is probably the one thing you cant dispute he is a professional (people PAY HIM TO TALK AND SIT AND LISTEN TO HIM) and this clip wasted my time ty sir
ArticX 2 months ago
@ArticX I never said he isn't a professional. That's not the point. And, goodness, 0:45 of your time must be worth, what, like $237?
ozmoroid 2 months ago
@ArticX professional speaker, professional author, professional showman.. not really a scientist or philosopher of any merit. Those titles are earned not through popularity or financial success but through the respect and recognition of academia.
antonc81 2 months ago
@antonc81 a person that can not be a speaker, an author, and a showman, has little chance to influence academia (this fool has so much influence because he MASTERS all 3 of those concepts) a scientist a philosopher of merit will decay in his field if he is not able to present the topic so that the listener,the reader, and the audience can understand (ignoring the importance of this concepts is very counter productive) If anything his level of professionalism should be adapted by most scientists.
ArticX 2 months ago
@ArticX
"a person that can not be a speaker, an author, and a showman, has little chance to influence academia"
- we observe the exact opposite most scientists are not professional debaters by any stretch of the imagination nor are scientific claims settled through public debate
types10000 2 months ago
@ArticX
"If anything his level of professionalism should be adapted by most scientists"
- last time i checked making bullshit claims that fail to meet the scientific burden of proof and then instead trying to win over the less educated general public wasnt 'professional'
types10000 2 months ago
@types10000 i see that in all his other videos yet this one does not show that, it is not his arguments that this video is attacking it is his presentation. professionalism is at least in sports considered a financial claim your are not a professional football play in high school unless you accept a pay off for playing (legal implications etc look it up yourself) might want to look up the meaning of professional (he is being payed for his lecture)
ArticX 2 months ago
@ArticX
"i see that in all his other videos yet this one does not show that, it is not his arguments that this..."
- Craig is establishing an appeal to authority (his own), this video serves to draw attention to that.
"sports considered a financial claim your are not a professional football play in high school unless you accept a pay off for playing "
- and that's really the issue here, you said he's a 'professional', well a professional what? because it certainly isnt a scientist
types10000 2 months ago
@ArticX Incorrect. A successful philosopher or scientist has to be able to publish research in peer reviewed journals, mostly aimed at other academics in his field - full of technical language and references to things only others in the field understand. The names and faces of most of the world's most important and influential scientific researchers are unknown outside their field, and their writing and speeches are incomprehensible to the layman.
antonc81 2 months ago
@antonc81 His field is not the academics you and I respect it is the theological circle. Nonetheless if people are willing to sit and listen to him talk for hours then I assume some of them do take him serious enough(wish they did not). The debates are for the layman(investor and the reader). I do research and if it was not for my ability to convey my ideas to others then I would never get funding (from the laymen). As for recognition all theological debates use the same ideas that he uses.
ArticX 2 months ago
@ArticX
"His field is not the academics you and I respect it is the theological circle."
- what is this 'theological circle'?
- what burden of proof are it's claims subjected to?
types10000 2 months ago
@antonc81 "Being a professional speaker can be something to strive for. But it's unnecessary for academic research." To research you need money saying this is just ignorant. if saying your a professional gets the audience attention (which it does) then it is one powerful tool and there are no reasons that can justify not using it...he is not lying he does have a degree and he does get payed for doing what he does he is published in his circle of study (theology) and does appeal to the listener.
ArticX 2 months ago
@ArticX
"To research you need money saying this is just ignorant"
- what's ignorant is your assumption that research grants are granted through verbal debate as opposed to prior awards and the merits of the research (as ascertained through the scientific literature)
"if saying your a professional gets the audience..."
- salutering a goat on stage would also likely get the audiences attention however is no more a valid argument. Appealing to any authority (even his own) is a logical fallacy
types10000 2 months ago
@types10000 never did i say debate, the scientific literature requires guidelines to be met before you are published (certain formats, labeling of data, organization, etc.) if you can not professionally present this data you are not a good scientist (if your co-workers cant understand your work you are useless)...yes a goat on stage would get the audience (not a bad idea) but i rather use a joke little less wtf...what would you prefer?..."is a logical fallacy"...yes but they work so well!
ArticX 2 months ago
@ArticX
"..yes a goat on stage would get the audience (not a bad idea) but i rather use a joke little less wtf...what would you prefer?"
- the attention-seeking nature of his claim wasnt the only parrelel i drew: the argumentative significance of him declaring himself a professional is equal to slaughting a goat on stage also.
"'is a logical fallacy'...yes but they work so well!"
- it's not good practise and he should be scrutinized for it.
types10000 2 months ago
@types10000 "...slaughting a goat on stage.." Little too dramatic (lamb chops!)
"...scrutinized.."
maybe if everything around us was rational, but if you are realistic you will be more successful in life if you admire practices that prove successful.
Try it...walk into a bar say: HI, I am lion-tamer. vs Hi, Let me tell you some FACTS that I can cite.
ArticX 2 months ago
@ArticX
"maybe if everything around us was rational, but if you are realistic you will be more successful in life if you admire practices that prove successful."
- he used a logical fallacy in debate, just because his audience is too stupid to realize this does not mean he should be free from the scrutiny of those who can recognise it.
- this is one of the many reasons science isnt decided by appeals to the ignorant masses.
types10000 2 months ago
@types10000 calling someone a lier, thief,cheat without proof in a book and you will be subjected to legal prosecution...if aliens existed then they could/would be able to take you to court for defamation...you can say santa was responsible for 9/11 but santa is not real so you would be safe...common sense
ArticX 2 months ago
@types10000 him being a professional or not is not the subject of the debate(at least i don't think he ever debated this) but a bank account statement would have won him that debate nonetheless
ArticX 2 months ago
@ArticX
" him being a professional or not is not the subject of the debate"
a). i never said it was.
b). it does not change the fact his statement is a logical fallacy (he is appealing to his own authority)
types10000 2 months ago
@ArticX
"he is not lying he does have a degree and he does get payed for doing what he does he is published in his circle of study (theology) "
- his fantasies about the how life could have arisen are not published and his credentials as a scientist do not give any credence to these unevidenced propositions.
Whether a claim is scientific is determined by it's adherence to the scientific method and the scientific burden of proof, not by whether the person making it happens to be a scientist
types10000 2 months ago
@types10000 he has like 8 books...little wikipedia research...nope never said he is a scientist...a philosopher of theology (what his credentials say)
"- what is this 'theological circle'?
- what burden of proof are it's claims subjected to?"
rhetorical yes?
ArticX 2 months ago
@ArticX
"he has like 8 books"
- books are opinion pieces that are not subject to a burden of proof.
"nope never said he is a scientist...a philosopher of theology (what his credentials say)"
- then what burden of proof are these claims subject to?
"rhetorical yes?"
- no not really, you said he made publications and i'm asking where and what burden of proof was used. if none was used then what is your basis for ascertaining their credibility?
types10000 2 months ago
@types10000 no books are not opinions there is a reason defamation exists...what burden of proof i do not know and neither do you...i have not read any of his publications and there are no lawsuits against him. philosophical claims require very little burden of proof... nonetheless claiming there is none without reading his work for yourself is dishonest (the catholic church used to do this...look up Galileo)
ArticX 2 months ago
@ArticX
"no books are not opinions there is a reason defamation exists"
- defamation relates to insults regarding a specific individual AND SAYS NOTHING about the integrity of claims contained in the book eg. if he wanted to claim 9/11 as perpetrated by aliens he would be able to do so, and irrespective of whether his claims could be proven absolutely wrong he would not be forced to print a retraction.
they are opinion pieces that are not subject to a burden of proof.
types10000 2 months ago
@types10000 there are reasons certain claims are ignored
ArticX 2 months ago
@ArticX
"have not read any of his publications"
- regardless of whether some of his PUBLICATIONS (a general term that also includes scientific papers) his BOOKS have not been (refer to previous post)
"nonetheless claiming there is none without reading his work for yourself is dishonest "
- INCORRECT, reading a given piece of material will tell me NOTHING about whether the CLAIMS have SUBJECT TO A BURDEN OF PROOF (which given the fact it's an ordinary non-academic book we know they havnt)
types10000 2 months ago
@types10000 Kripke semantics is the basis for his argument 1000s of citations and sources exist for this in philosophical peer review...and accepted in philosophy
ArticX 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ArticX
"Kripke semantics is the basis for his argument 1000s of citations and sources exist for this in philosophical peer review...and accepted in philosophy"
Then where are these alleged publications and what burden of proof have they been subjected to???
What benchmark have they passed to establish their credibility?
types10000 2 months ago
@types10000 just did a Google scholar search on him and he has many peer review articles...so no not just books...insulting others without any basis got old in middle school...the logical fallacy is defending a guy i don't care for to someone that is less intelligent
ArticX 2 months ago
@ArticX
" just did a Google scholar search on him and he has many peer review articles"
- i am sure he does, however the fact he does have publications does not give any credence to his unevidenced supernatural fantasies.
Here's an example of what i mean:
i sir Isaac Newton am a professional scientist, and i believe in alchemy blabla.
types10000 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ArticX
"insulting others without any basis got old in middle school"
- the basis has already been provided ie. he is appealing to his own authority (appeal to authority logical fallacy)
"...the logical fallacy is defending a guy i don't care for to someone that is less intelligent"
- it appears that you are as stupid as him as you have just commit the Ad hominem fallacy by insulting me instead of addressing my argument.
GET SMARTER
types10000 2 months ago
@antonc81 the standard of prof in his field is not that of the scientific field. this is a theological debate this guys talk about the eye in the sky. saying i am a professional is what the issue is REALLY! it is not the fact that he is talking about the invisible dictator...merry xmass
ArticX 2 months ago
@antonc81 there is a reason peer review and scientific publications require strict guidelines before publishing any research study. true the fact checking is one of those reasons but also for the research to be productively used it must be understood for the audience therefore calling this guy a professional speaker and implying that it is not something to strive for is ignorant.
ArticX 2 months ago
@ArticX I really think you've missed the point of this video. I never implied someone shouldn't strive to be a professional. It's about *announcing to the audience* that you are a professional. That's what's funny. I have never heard a scientist at a scientific conference start off with, "As a professional scientist, I blah blah blah." If I did I, and the the whole room, would chuckle.
ozmoroid 2 months ago
@ozmoroid credentials are always presented in any and all formal presentations if you went into a room not introducing yourself and started lecturing me on philosophy or science (economics etc.) i would walk out (and i hope you would do the same). there is no serious scientific paper or conference that does not state the name of the author, occupation, position held at a university, industry or laboratory.
ArticX 2 months ago
@ArticX The problem is that this isn't really a credential, and here it is clearly an appeal to authority, not a way to present himself: "I am a professional philosopher, hear me out, trust everything I say, no need to check anything I say, it's pure truth", that's all he does.
psychoh13 2 months ago
@psychoh13 that is what he does yet this video does not attack his BS
ArticX 2 months ago
@ArticX Maybe it's a language/cultural issue, but you aren't hearing what I'm saying. Calling yourself a "professional" is simply hilarious. It's about that word, not about having credentials. I've presented papers at scientific conferences for decades, published in several journals, peer reviewed papers, sat on NASA & NSF review panels and I've never seen anyone ever refer to him/herself as a "professional." I would laugh out loud if that happened. It would sound so phony.
ozmoroid 2 months ago
@ozmoroid As a professional YouTube commenter, I agree with this sentiment.
Turgor 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Turgor
"As a professional YouTube commenter, I agree with this sentiment."
- well since you've stated that your a professional, your comment is easily worth 10 times as much as before
types10000 2 months ago
@ArticX Yes but a professional scientist never pretends to be a professional horseman. So a professional show-pony with no academic recognition should be careful about representing himself as a professional in an academic discipline. Professional speaker? Sure, and I commend his presentation skills. Professional anything else?.. well show me how many respecteded academics have cited his work and I'll think about acknowledging it.
antonc81 2 months ago
@ozmoroid this are stuff we learn in preschool (hi my x. i just moved here from y. (teacher says class say hello to x)..etc.) the man is arrogant likes the sound of his voice yet your not attacking that your attacking a presentation which for him fits with both his personality and his view point (all speakers are told to be themselves when they lecture so i fail to see his mistake)
ArticX 2 months ago
@ArticX Being a professional speaker can be something to strive for. But it's unnecessary for academic research. You only need the understanding of your peers. The man tries to present himself as a professional in something other than showmanship... which simply isn't true. Showmanship and public presentation are the only fields in which he is a professional. His philosophy is amateurish and his scientific knowledge is demonstrably non existant.
antonc81 2 months ago
@antonc81 attacking his argument would be far more thought provoking and useful rather then developing some lame rhetoric to insult him. i have read scientific publishing that at times would benefit if only some of those philosophers and scientists would take an English class. WLC's argument is bad enough and can be broken down to a comical without resulting to a video like this.
ArticX 2 months ago
Bea Arthur and Mel Brooks, in the film, "History of the World"
Brooks, as Comicus; (proudly) "Stand-up philosopher!"
Arthur, as the unemployment lady: "Oh, a bullshit artist."
Impalamark64 2 months ago
As a professional adventurer I take arrows to the knee.
MatchCard 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I know it's the cool thing among some of you new atheists to talk crap about Craig. But I'm sorry, you only end up looking stupid when you say things like "He'z no really a philosopherz. Derp!" The dude holds a PhD in Philosophy from Birmingham and has written countless peer-reviewed articles in philosophical journals.
Yeah, sorry to spoil your fun.
AgApE010 2 months ago
@AgApE010 I think you miss the point. It's about *announcing* to the audience that you're a "professional philosopher." That's pretty funny.
ozmoroid 2 months ago
Comment removed
AgApE010 2 months ago
Comment removed
AgApE010 2 months ago
As a master debater, I approve of this video.
lolgepwnt 2 months ago in playlist Favorite videos
Its sad that WLC is too dumb to realize that he's a professional speaker, not a professional philosopher.
htomerif 2 months ago
It's hilarious how Willy Craig is making these "critical thinkers" nuts...
"Hey look! he made a vague creationist remark/apparently contradicted himself/dared to imply that you ought to know the subject we're naively invading with our randi ass deductions!"
"Let's edit that out and make an angry, loopy hate vid!"
RGMadSimon 2 months ago
@RGMadSimon
I was unaware that every video criticizing WLC should address every point he ever made. This is a simple video displaying how Craig avails himself to his "authority" as a "professional philosopher" to hide how weak his arguments are (and as a license to straw man the hell out of opposing points of view).
I will grant that I'd rather the video elaborated more on this with other (plentiful) examples of Craig engaging in such practices, but your "criticism" is obviously mindless.
uvauva2 2 months ago
As a professional mathematician, I'm telling you that the integral of e^x is C, plus some variable.
beriukay 2 months ago
pretty dumb video!
moosepopper 2 months ago
In a few centuries, after advanced genetic engineering is universal and all humans are smarter than Einstein ever was, young children will watch archived drivel from the likes of WLC and marvel in amazement at the daft lack of rational faculty, the dishonestly deliberate credulity, and the asinine smug pretensions of such apologists. Ultimately he'll only be remembered as an example of the worst kind of dangerous egocentric irrationality that our species was lucky enough to survive.
TheAnniepies 2 months ago
Yes, I'm a professional philosopher -- amateurs shouldn't try these arguments at home.
prodprod 2 months ago
But Craig isn't funny at all. . .
Oh wait. I get it.
Moonfoote 2 months ago
WLC Answer to everything
"All Things perceived to exist actually exist therfor how can you conceive god if he doesnt exist" - genius, making the imagination come alive
shandcunt 2 months ago
Craig is a professional delusionist. And to hell with my spell checker for telling me that is not a word! :)
JabberCT 2 months ago
WLC: A vile, bile-spewing simpleton. A delusional, willfully ignorant fucktard with a masters degree in ass-hattery and deceit. Probably not addicted to amphetamines and intercourse with Ted Haggard.
And now a professional philosopher too!
Are there no limits to what WLC can do?
(apart from tell the difference between reality and magical fairy tales with pixies, gum drop trees and talking snakes!)
Bhurzum 2 months ago
It's cute how Craig thinks philosophy is actually still a discipline.
Kalevala87 2 months ago
Hey, don't bullshit a professional bullshitter.
JohnWoo 2 months ago
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA
upublic 2 months ago
As a professional YouTube lurker and thumbs-upper, I approve. Professionally.
virumoz 2 months ago
@virumoz Professional approval - you can't top that.
ozmoroid 2 months ago
@ozmoroid Professional bystander right here.
RageAndQuit 2 months ago
@virumoz
It is of my professional opinion, that it is unacceptable that there's' no way for me to thumb up the above comment.
Mrmoc7 2 months ago
Well the thing with philosophy is that you can 'prove' anything. Provided certain conditions are met, which usually remain untested. Sure you can 'prove' god by postulating things you can't verify. But the lengths at which this talking cunt is willing to go to even argue for a Christian god and to make that god look perfect and moral, is just astounding. What an irony, to be so dishonest in order to defend something that he believes is the truth and a basis of morality. A nasty little sophist.
topperheartramada 2 months ago
Am I the only one who's hates his thumbs? These things annoy me so much!
hingeslevers 2 months ago
That was mean! ;-)
Wrath0fKhan 2 months ago
Professional something... Philosopher is not the term I would have used .
AuntieDiluvian 2 months ago
Little Billy Craig and his cute song and dance, someday he is gonna be on television if he works hard and drinks his milk.
Atheistprimate 2 months ago
Being a professional philosopher is like being a professional salesman. You need someone to buy your shit to remain professional. It doesnt mean your shit works.
fantasy0coach 2 months ago
@fantasy0coach Exactly.
ozmoroid 2 months ago
@fantasy0coach *thump up* (since i can´t thump up you :D)
damuschka 2 months ago
@fantasy0coach The most astute analogy.
TheAnubisDrake 2 months ago
Ahhh... good ol steve martin, he mastered anti-comedy before people even knew what it was.
pointmanzero 2 months ago
William Lame Craig is a professional bullshitter.
-
on a serious note, if he really did study philosophy
he must have been learned about all the logical fallacies
this leaves me with a question:
-> is his brain so compartmentalized that he can't see the flaws in his logic
or is it just intellectual dishonesty & the hope that his audience is to uneducated to to see through the ruse
unamaxify 2 months ago
@unamaxify The former - his brain is compartmentalized. I don't see WLC as being a knowingly evil, deceitful guy. He seems fairly nice; he just doesn't realize how sophomoric and lame his arguments with respect to god are. We should all remember WLC's most direct claim about his belief, the one in which he says that it is based on being a "witness of the holy spirit" and that that gives him a "self-authenticating" method of knowing the Bible is right "outside of the evidence."
gatorhighlights4 2 months ago
@gatorhighlights4
"WLC self-authenticating witness method to determine truth"
You make a reasonable argument, but the paranoid part of me
still wonders if it isn't part of the deception.
unamaxify 2 months ago
@unamaxify It's the last option. WLC is a used car salesman for christianity. He is paid to spread the bullshit on as thick as he can scoop it to keep the dumb asses who don't want to think for themselves in the pews. If he actually convinced a skeptic using his "philosophical" arguments, then that person really wasn't a skeptic.
Relativisticism 2 months ago
@Relativisticism
i agree with you on what he does, but he could do all this stuff just as well as a true believer. I tend to think just as you do that he is a shifty salesman.
However this is because i can't imagine how it would feel like living with such contradictions in my head. There is empirical evidence that people can hold contradicting believes.
unamaxify 2 months ago
@unamaxify Name one logical fallacy that Craig uses in his arguments
DrOman5596 2 months ago
@DrOman5596 Ad populum, false dichotomy, appeal to ignorance, appeal to authority, some of which can be found in this video which was found by using the search bar youtube.com/watch?v=abUVk65R-gc
Also, I can tell you've never actually used the search bar up top to find videos critiquing him, do you just swallow everything he says verbatim?
infinity730 2 months ago
@infinity730 I was going to say that the fact that you posted that video makes it more likely that you swallow criticisms of him verbatim, but it was interesting that you didn't list ad hominem. If you were able to spot that the author of that clip falsely applied ad hominem, why were you unable to spot that ad populum was also falsely applied? His statements would be fallacious if he used them to conclude that God exists, but he doesn't. List an argument and explain the fallacy
DrOman5596 2 months ago
@DrOman5596 Craig uses Kalam a lot, which is an appeal to ignorance.
He also likes to shift the burden of proof by saying "atheists are trying to disprove the existence of god".
"His statements would be fallacious if he used them to conclude that God exists"
Craig has said many times that the arguments he presents aren't contingent on his belief in god. Basically saying that even if you prove all his arguments wrong, he'll still believe.
infinity730 2 months ago
@infinity730 Look at the arguments premises p1 everything that begins to exist has a cause, and p2, the universe began to exist. The conclusion that the u. must have a cause is justified from 1 and 2. There is no appeal to ignorance. You might disagree with the evidence supporting p1 and p2, but Kalam is logically valid as an argument. He does say that his belief isn't contingent on his personal belief, but he doesn't incorporate that into an argument or use that as justification.
DrOman5596 2 months ago
@DrOman5596 My personal objection to Kalam is more in the vain of stating that "beginning to exist" is not only vague, but potentially incoherent, considering scientific observation, but that's beside the point. It's an appeal to ignorance because it posits that if "I" can't answer how the universe "began" to exist, than it must be his narrow interpretation of the christian god.
TBS does a good summation of the main problems with this argument in this video: /watch?v=fRn-mVPIl60
infinity730 2 months ago
@infinity730 I have seen that video. TBS is one of the atheists I like on youtube, though I think he's too quick to assume malevolent motives on Craigs part. You might be interested to know that Craig directly responded to that TBS clip in his article, "Must Everything that Begins to Exist Have a Material Cause?" and further elaborates in "Must the Universe Have a Material Cause?"
DrOman5596 2 months ago
@DrOman5596 Yes I followed that back-and-fourth between them. Craig straw-manned his position fairly well enough to squirm out of that one. Still, I've never seen Craig connect the dots between the deistic god of Kalam, and his christian viewpoint.
infinity730 2 months ago
Let's not forget that Kalam is used by many Muslim apologists to reaffirm their position.
infinity730 2 months ago
@infinity730 And what might the phrase "their position" be referring to? That the only God is Allah and Muhammad is his prophet? al-Ghazzālī certainly never claimed that the KCA proved this fact when he created the argument. Is "their position" the fact that an immaterial first cause of the material universe exists? That's not just "their" position but the position of many religions. And since it's not just "their position", people of other faiths use the KCA.
TheAntiEgalitarian 2 months ago
@TheAntiEgalitarian Not sure if it's worth my time to respond to this.
infinity730 2 months ago
@infinity730 Try me.
TheAntiEgalitarian 2 months ago
@TheAntiEgalitarian I said "reaffirm their position" the most important part of that was that it was used to "reaffirm" not to prove their position, the argument appeals to those that already believe. "Their position" refers to their belief in a god. I posted my personal objections to the argument in an earlier comment.
Followup question:
"the fact that an immaterial first cause of the material universe exists"
^ How is this a fact?
infinity730 2 months ago
@infinity730 Only a pedant could be concerned with such things, but fine. "al-Ghazzālī certainly never claimed that the KCA reaffirms this belief when he created the argument." Better now? Now what are we suppose to derive from the fact that Jews, Christians, and Muslims all use the KCA to "reaffirm" there beliefs? What is entailed by this fact? It certainly doesn't demonstrate that argument is invalid or that it's premises are false. Your statement just seems like a red herring.
TheAntiEgalitarian 2 months ago
@TheAntiEgalitarian "al-Ghazzālī certainly never claimed..." Then what purpose does the argument serve? It certainly doesn't prove anything, the wording is sloppy, and the (many) conclusions don't follow from the premise.
"what are we suppose to derive"
I just said, the argument appeals to those that already believe, but is looked at by skeptics as not only bad, but potentially incoherent.
Even if I agree with the deist creator god of Kalam, it doesn't prove Christianity.
infinity730 2 months ago
@infinity730 "Then what purpose does the argument serve?" To prove that an immaterial first cause of the universe exists, a doctrine that Judaism, Christianity, Islam and many religions share. That is why people from different religions use it, the same way two physicists, one who says the geometry of the universe is hyperbolic, another that it is elliptic, might use the same argument against the 5th postulate. It is NOT meant to prove or reaffirm or even address any other doctrine of Islam.
TheAntiEgalitarian 2 months ago
@TheAntiEgalitarian "To prove that an immaterial first cause of the universe exists" Then the argument is a failure, and shouldn't be used.
infinity730 2 months ago
@infinity730 All it needs is an additional premise and a rewording: 1) For all x, if x begins to exist, then x has a cause. 2) The entirety of material existence began to exist. 3) If the entirety of material existence has a cause, then the cause is immaterial. C) Ergo, the cause of the entirety of material existence is immaterial.
1) (x) (Bx-->Cx)
2) Bm
3) Cm-->Ic
4) Bm-->Cm 1, UI
5) Cm 2,4,MP
6) Ic 3,5,MP
P.S. The entirety of material existence refers to all space-time, matter, and energy.
TheAntiEgalitarian 2 months ago
@TheAntiEgalitarian Name one immaterial thing.
infinity730 2 months ago
Maybe I should reword that:
Demonstrate the existence of one immaterial thing we both believe exists.
This thing cannot be conceptual or hypothetical.
infinity730 2 months ago
@infinity730 The existence of a given object is not contingent on either you or I recognizing its existence. Since you cling to the dogma of physicalism there is admittedly nothing that both of us believe to exist and be immaterial. Although I would say that most people intuitively know that consciousness, although a product of physical causes in the brain, cannot be reduced to a physical entity. For arguments see "What is it like to be a bat?" (Nagel) and "What Mary didn't know" (Jackson).
TheAntiEgalitarian 2 months ago
@TheAntiEgalitarian "The existence of a given object is not contingent on either you or I recognizing its existence"
No it is contingent on whether or not it can be demonstrated to exist.
Belief should be withheld until such time.
"you cling to the dogma of physicalism(sic)"
Even though I accept that some things are conceptual in nature? I'm not sure you even understand my position.
"most people intuitively know"
Intuition is not a valid system of demonstrating knowledge.
infinity730 2 months ago
@infinity730 "No it is contingent on whether or not it can be demonstrated to exist." Even that isn't true. Even if humans went extinct before the Earth was demonstrated to revolve around the sun by Copernicus that wouldn't make heliocentrism is false. Belief should be withheld until there is evidence to determine a belief to be true or false, but that doesn't mean the belief would have been false if it had never been verified.
TheAntiEgalitarian 2 months ago
@TheAntiEgalitarian
So the only options to every claim is either outright acceptance or vehement denial?
I said withhold belief, not believe something different.
Neither option had been demonstrated to be true, so in that case I wouldn't believe either one. The nature of that example is highly suspicious, a better choice would be Russel's Teapot.
infinity730 2 months ago
@infinity730 "I said withhold belief, not believe something different." I never claimed you said that we should believe something else. I said you said "[The existence of a given object] is contingent on whether or not it can be demonstrated to exist."
TheAntiEgalitarian 2 months ago
@TheAntiEgalitarian Belief that any given object exists should necessarily be dependent on one's ability to demonstrate it's existence.
Better?
infinity730 2 months ago
@infinity730 Yes, actually.
TheAntiEgalitarian 2 months ago
@infinity730 physicalism(sic)" That is spelled correctly. It is a doctrine in philosophy. Google it. If you added "(sic)" because you do not in fact hold to physicalism then fine, my bad. Most of what you have said indicated that you did believe in physicalism. "Intuition is not a valid system of demonstrating knowledge." Never said it was. That's why I directed you to two papers for arguments.
TheAntiEgalitarian 2 months ago
@TheAntiEgalitarian Im not a fan of philosophy, the only one I trust to demonstrate knowledge would be methodological naturalism, a sub-category of empiricism.
infinity730 2 months ago
@infinity730 I was able to infer that from your ignorance of the subject.
TheAntiEgalitarian 2 months ago
@TheAntiEgalitarian I prefer the sciences.
infinity730 2 months ago
@TheAntiEgalitarian
Is it a coincidence that the immaterial and the nonexistent appear so similar?
infinity730 2 months ago
@infinity730 UV light, infrared light, wind, and non-existence look exactly the same to a human without the aid of technology. Just because something cannot be detected by human sight doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Something can be inferred to exist through the other four senses or as a theoretical explanation for some other observation.
TheAntiEgalitarian 2 months ago
@TheAntiEgalitarian
"UV light, infrared light"
Light can be measured, it's made up of a basic force of nature called electromagnetism.
It is not immaterial, as light travels as both a particle and a wave.
"wind"
Seriously? Air molecules...
This is ridiculous, and a waste of my time
"the other four senses"
Ah so now you demonstrate you have no idea what you are talking about. You do know that science has surpassed Aristotle right?
infinity730 2 months ago
@infinity730 You have demonstrated that you can't fucking read. I said they look the same as non-existence to a human unaided by technology, not they are immaterial. I recognize they are made up of material objects. Again, you can't fucking read.
TheAntiEgalitarian 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@infinity730 You have demonstrated that you can't fucking read. I said they look the same as non-existence to a human unaided by technology, not they are immaterial. I recognize they are made up of material objects. Again, you can't fucking read. The point is that your implied assertion that "if something can't be detected visually then it doesn't exist" if false. I was not arguing that these things are immaterial. Again, you can't fucking read.
TheAntiEgalitarian 2 months ago
@DrOman5596 "but he doesn't incorporate that into an argument or use that as justification"
Why wouldn't he present his contingent argument, if he has one, for all to see? You would think that he'd stop using the same tired old arguments and bring out the big guns, what he himself finds to be convincing. Right? But sadly, no.
infinity730 2 months ago
@DrOman5596 Oh, and I was just posting the first link that came up with a search.
infinity730 2 months ago
@DrOman5596
Well the fact that you are posing this question lets me assume that you didn't recieve any abstract logic education, that will make it nesscesairy for me to do extensive explaining in oder to make the the logical fallacies of Craig visible to you.
I'm too lazy to do that.
however here are some examples of craig using logical fallacies
watch?v=abUVk65R-gc
unamaxify 2 months ago
@unamaxify The fact that you posted that video makes your condescension towards me hilarious. It would take extensive explaining indeed for that video. Even rabid internet atheists recognize that it is flawed. Craig wasn't using any of the statements he made in that video in support of any argument or position. You're the one with the doctorate in symbolic logic. List an argument that Craig makes and identify which logical fallacy he uses.
DrOman5596 2 months ago
@DrOman5596
yeah your right he didn't make any religious arguments in that video
-> however i never said he would, i said "some examples of craig using logical fallacies"
-> that makes your argument a straw-man
Its a shame YouTube blocks weblinks (so google it yourself)
By demanding me to post examples you earned that condescension
because you apparently fell for WLC's crap.
-> i can't summarize one of WLC arguments and then show why his logic is flawed within the 500 character limit
unamaxify 2 months ago
@unamaxify "I said "some examples of craig using logical fallacies" Keep digging. The statements he makes in that video would only be fallacious if he used them to conclude that he was right an atheists were wrong. Again, you're the expert, I'm not asking for an essay, just one argument that Craig uses, and one logical fallacy which that argument uses.
DrOman5596 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DrOman5596
"...he didn't use them to conclude that he was right & atheist were wrong"
-you can't possibly be arguing that he's only telling random thoughts
the context of an implied meaning or agenda like concluding he was right...
is relevant when determinating whether he was using logical fallacies or not.
(especially in spoken language).
-
"I'm not asking for an essay" -> i can't condense it enough without massacring coherence
i'l try to make a video (I'l pm you when its done)
unamaxify 2 months ago
@DrOman5596 here's one: he asserts that the universe has a cause, then he makes claims for features of that cause without justification (timeless, immaterial, etc.)
also known as argumentum ad ignoratium. hope this helps.
playadominical 2 months ago
@playadominical He doesn't assert that the universe has a cause, he concludes it deductively from two premises. I think his justification for the properties of the cause is quite good. The cause of space time reality couldn't be composed of anything within space time reality, an eternal cause rendering a temporal effect is plausibly personal etc, he certainly doesn't assert the traits it without justification, and even if he did, I'm not sure how it would commit that fallacy
DrOman5596 2 months ago
@DrOman5596 deduction doesn't work when the premises aren't true. in this case, the premises are not even likely true, they are just guesses. so that means his deductive argument amounts to a guess as well.
playadominical 2 months ago
@playadominical Well the original topic was whether or not he used logical fallacies. Whether or not the premises are true is another question. On that I'll just say that his justification of the premises is far more rigorous than you give him credit for
DrOman5596 2 months ago
Is the joke supposed to be that philosophy isn't an academically oriented and worth pursuing ? If so , someone needs familiarize himself with actual peer reviewed content.
SonytoBratsoni 2 months ago
@SonytoBratsoni I believe the joke is that those who study philosophy professionally actually study and discuss philosophy at a high level. They don't merely repackage Christian apologetics into the apparent structure of logical argument and then hand-wave their way past obvious failures of cogency.
As you say, "someone needs to familiarize himself with actual peer reviewed content" -- "someone" = William Lane Craig.
TheHogTieChamp 2 months ago
@TheHogTieChamp Well , if that is indeed the case I can laugh alongside .
Some comedies are ambiguous ,which is why I asked for clarification .
SonytoBratsoni 2 months ago
@TheHogTieChamp Your accusation about him not being familiar with peer reviewed content shows that it's probably you who doesn't know about peer reviewed content. The youtube clips that you've seen him in represent a microscopic portion of his career. Go to his website reasonable faith under "scholarly articles" and you'll find dozens of responses to peer reviewed objections.
DrOman5596 2 months ago
@SonytoBratsoni The joke is the one that Steve Martin is playing on. Jokes are either funny or not funny. Period. He makes the hilarious claim to be a "professional comedian" as if his jokes therefore *have to be* funny. Likewise for a philosophical argument. I don't care if WLC is paid by someone to be a "professional" philosopher. His arguments are either sound or not.
ozmoroid 2 months ago
@ozmoroid But as a professional bullshitter claiming to be a professional philosopher adds substance to his bullshit.
herbiepop 2 months ago
@ozmoroid Isn't this objection rather redundant ? Essentially this can be extended to any pursuit , you are either effective in philosophy , literature , art , science , military , sports etc or you aren't .
The speaker , to me , didn't seem to imply that due to his professional status he would be effective in delivering . Perhaps , he was saying that because of his training he would , probabilistically , be more efficient.
SonytoBratsoni 2 months ago
@SonytoBratsoni Based on the W.L.C. presentations I've seen, I think it's a weak appeal to authority which I find funny. And, yes, if someone tried to impress me by saying they were a "professional artist" I would probably chuckle. Just show me your art - I'll decide if it's impressive.
ozmoroid 2 months ago
@SonytoBratsoni WTF is peer reviewed philosophy? What qualifies someone to peer review? By what standard do they review the philosophy?
AllOtherNamesTaken2 2 months ago
@AllOtherNamesTaken2 of course, philosophy also has journals and philosophers publish peer reviewed papers all the time. the standards themselves are often reviewed, so it's not something you will be able to understand by reading the comments on a youtube video. if you aren't familiar with philosophy, you should take an intro course or read some Plato to get started.
playadominical 2 months ago
@playadominical Is there a Peer Reviewed article on WLC's Kalam argument?
Meatbag211 2 months ago
@playadominical I did take a course and I've read Nietzsche and Hume for fun in my free time. I thought most of it was bullshit and since everyone disagrees I couldn't imagine a peer review process. When scientists have peer review they actually have things called math and empirical evidence which lets them figure out who is right and who is wrong. Obviously the peer review process in philosophy is much less efficient, whatever it is.
AllOtherNamesTaken2 2 months ago
@AllOtherNamesTaken2 the peer review process in philosophy examines the arguments and considers a number of things, like whether the argument is valid or strong, whether the proposed theory makes useful predictions, whether these predictions can be validated by observation or other forms of justification, and so on. philosophy is not just "stating a view", it's an activity, and so there are right ways to do it and wrong ways to do it. the peer review process attempts to sort this out.
playadominical 2 months ago
When he was a kid WLC's Mom told him that someday he'd find out what his Special Purpose was..
GawdSwill 2 months ago
I don't get it.
RectalItching 2 months ago
oh, goodie! ppl r uploading FUNNY vids tonite, and BOY did I need to laugh! thx
rriverstone1 2 months ago
WLC is a professional moron, so is all the other religous nutcases, they're extremely good at being morons.
goreziad 2 months ago
WLC + philosophy = derp.
It's a fact, look it up. ;p