Price outlines clearly what i find so insincere about wlc...skeptically pwned should do a sketch where the kick him in the nuts right where he delivers his infamous 'even if all of my arguments fail or new evidence disproves them the witness of the holy spirit vindicates my belief' bit.
The more I read Christian apologetics, the more I realize that even the most educated, prolific and well-respected apologists have very lousy, shaky and pathetic arguments.
Why isn't this comment section censored like the Christian members' videos? Why do they fear the truth so much? Christians are so transparent and in denial, it's just ridiculous...
I don't see why Craig would need to change his arguments for each debate if it is on the same topic. You come up with arguments that you believe are sound, so why change them... unless of course they are proven to be implausible.
@martiandog89 what calls my attention is that he never enters into new debates, and when invited he forces the title of the debate into something where he can use his battle horse. Also, maybe for you an argument is a sillogism. I've seen Price make his arguments even richer through every debate. Evidence of learning and research.
@sirdelrio Yeah, but the stuff he has debated about is among the more interesting stuff. What kind of stuff should he be trying to debate? The church doctrine?
@sirdelrio I think that is really all that can come from a debate about God. There is certainly not going to be any evidence on earth about God's existence. That would be him saying "I'm going to prove God tonight" which he does not. He has showed in his debates that they might as well be agnostics.
@kafkazinho I'm not sure. Jews believed in basically the idea of a resurrection being like a zombie. One has to think though that perhaps God made it so that people wouldn't be freaked out by the body (your asking something that a certainly don't know). I do know that the bible asserts that god can basically do amazing things.. in the valley of "dry bones" god causes all the bones to basically be assembled together back into skeletons and then causes flesh to appear and breath life in after...
WC Craig is just one more theological spindoctor or sophist riding the banal fact that you can't prove a negative (i.e. "god does not exist"). But: extraordinary claims about an "all-powerful" (a logical fallacy in itself) "all-knowing", "all-good" entity that supposedly created the universe demand extraordinary evidence, but none such is to be had! Also: the deeds of that god (according to the bible as well as to everyday experience) absolutely defy any sound definition of "goodness"!
I hate to point this out, but I know my mother loves me because I experience it, not because I deduced it. To argue that his faith is purely subjective presupposes knowledge of the nature of faith and whether or not it delivers reality like mom. :-) I incidentally find atheistic materialism utterly incoherent.
@Youdamana "I incidentally find atheistic materialism utterly incoherent." You can prove your mom exists I assume, but you cannot prove your god exists. If I said a giant fluffy glaxlox loves me, that does not make it true. Arguments about proving it does not exist before doubting its existence or arguments based on my testimony that I 'feel' its presence would not convince many. Theists dismiss thousands of god claims, but cannot apply it to their own god. Its a blind spot.
All this guy did was expose himself in a sense of how he understands things. He says that quite a few times- "..as I understand..." so no real shock or real significant revelation here.
@82dr89bg mmm, do you understand sarcasm? and this speech is perhaps one of the greatest examples of critical thinking, the fine threading, the multiple points of view used to demolish Craig's historical research methodology.
I laugh at the pathetic attempt by you atheist who can't win an argument with the facts so you maker personal attacks instead. Give it up guys, you know you are wrong if you just open your mind and heart and look at the real facts and real information from a objective view point, including what is in your in gut instincts. No need to reply because I won't bother with Youtube message tag arguments, which is so important to you folks to make yourself feel good about your little insecure life.
"No need to reply because I won't bother with Youtube message tag arguments, which is so important to you folks to make yourself feel good about your little insecure life."
Yes, this has no importance to you at all, which is why you felt the need to comment. If I may be so bold, I'd suggest the actual reason you won't respond is because you know, through experience, that you can't hold your own on a discussion.
@MegaDude1969 who's life is little and insecure? the one who relies in his own criterium, and accepts uncertainty, or those holding on to supernatural protection? And if you think it was an adhominem, then you need to watch it again, because it's about "if your methodology is sloppy, your results might be too".
@sirdelrio I don't know why someone would call you insecure. You seem really bold and proud to me... kind of like the man who built his house on the sands, rather than the rock. Hopefully philosophy and wisdom of the flesh will help you in your understanding of why things exist, yet I have my doubts that it even can in any sense of reconciling the unique human condition. Seek and maybe you will find. Hint: the first step is the entertainment of agnosticism.
@martiandog89 what you call 'seek' i understand it as 'self-persuassion'. I don't claim to be an expert, but i'm no kid either. In science is where i can discuss better, cause i'm a grad student. Philosophy i have some background, and biblical history and exegesis, well, i must admit that i've learned from Price's podcasts, that render every apologist a simple rookie. I don't buy, i contrast points of view. I think i will no longer postpone posting Price's podcasts.
@MegaDude1969 What's funny is that the truth is the complete opposite of what you state. A scientist observes the facts and certain truths to describe the world in an empirical manner. Science does not go beyond facts or certain truths, unless it is to form theories which later can or can not be proved to be true. Theism goes beyond facts and truths to make claims that cannot be proven or verified in an empirical way.
@Madghaar I understand, but the Jews believe that God gave the law to Moses... so really it is kind of just tradition. Moses is one of the few patriarchs that was likely a real person.. Hopefully the Hebrews made that whole thing about the miracle of the parting of the sea (God proving himself Israel, who then preceded to worship idols, yet again which caused Moses to break the blessed 10 commandments). I feel there is a lot of stuff in Judaism that just does not have the marks of divine fiction
If god existed we shouldn't be having this conversation. I've come to realize that perhaps NOT KNOWING that he does exist FOR SURE is a necessary component of faith, so quit it apologists.
@uvauva2 im waiting for your proper scientific method. Oh, and please see my previous comment. It was for you but was mislabeled due to my phone playing up.
"im waiting for your proper scientific method. Oh, and please see my previous comment. It was for you but was mislabeled due to my phone playing up."
Are you incapable of reading? Just how many times do I need to repeat my answer? If indeed there existed a god as described in the bible I would expect we would find a world that had been specially created. In particular, I would expect, for instance, the phylogenetic trees obtained from analyzing different genes NOT to match up (...)
WLC's statements are just the combined conclusions of his ideas, and psychology demonstrates that more often than not it isn't logic or evidence that determines one's position.
What Price is trying to do is dismiss WLC as an illogical force. His idea that WLC writing to people who agree with him being different then in a debate as an argument is silly; do atheists not take certain things for granted when they communicate with like-minded peers? Thus far I am not impressed with his points.
Actually freely admitting one's bias ahead of time should not be a factor in whether or not their reasoning is accurate. Psychological studies have demonstrated time and time again that people are very biased, and in more than one way. One is something akin to where you study a new subject and when you find something you find plausible and pallatable, you stop looking for more evidence or information. So far Price hasn't demonstrated that WLC is being erroneous, just perhaps too honest.
@Sickopath333 oh no no, there's more in Price's critique than the bias. And i think you just didn't get the point. The special pleading, the arguments from authority, THE DOUBLE TRUTH MODEL (no bias precisely, more than that), biblical inerrancy (the historical facts of the bible).
@sirdelrio Yes but you see this guy just picked the one thing that he thought he was able to argue against and posted a comment about it. There should be a user's manual for brains, telling people when to express their opinion and when not to unless all they want is waste the time of all the people who read it. I hope I didn't waste your time, truly.
@sirdelrio I only provided one example of bias. As my point is, Price is merely trying to paint WLC as a fallacious source, describing his thought processes as irrational or in error, instead of actually taking his arguments and responding to them. Citing experts in a field you are not yourself an expert in is not fallacious; saying that they are right just because they are experts is, but is WLC doing that? Of course not. As I said, he's trying to discredit WLC, which is weak.
"Of course not. As I said, he's trying to discredit WLC, which is weak."
Not really. Ultimately what he is doing is exhibiting just how Craig's arguments are ultimately circular and grounded in personal feelings. It would be right to say that this does discredit Craig, but that's merely because they portray him accurately.
@uvauva2 I hate to jump in here but, his critique of wlc is easily refuted. wlc does believe in God for personal reasons.his arguments may not be the basis for his belief, but this does not disqualify them. i can accept that a good meal strengthens me purely on my feeling that it does so. whether or not i can explain or even understand nutrition and digestion does not undo it's effect. i can trust my feelings in the matter.
Are you by this trying to imply that feelings themselves are a valid reason to believing in a god? Because you seem on the verge of doing so. Clarify, please.
"his arguments may not be the basis for his belief, but this does not disqualify them."
Did you even listen to the video? Part of what Price does is exhibit how ultimately Craig's arguments are based on feelings, not objective analysis.
@uvauva2 are you attempting to imply that there is no validity in personal experience? and i did listen to the video. there is one thing Price did not do: refute any of Craig's actual premises or conclusions.
"are you attempting to imply that there is no validity in personal experience?"
As far as divining the details of the workings of the universe, very little, yes. Undisciplined personal experience gives you information about personal experience itself, and not much else.
"there is one thing Price did not do: refute any of Craig's actual premises or conclusions. "
This is his introductory speech. He has no obligation (nor does it make sense) to address opposing points at this time.
@uvauva2 so he spent 10 minutes not actually addressing the issue? and unless i have some reason not to trust my basic sense perceptions, my personal experiences tell me quite a lot about the universe with which i come in contact. let me ask you this, from a purely scientific perspective, if there was a God, what type of evidence would one expect to find?
"so he spent 10 minutes not actually addressing the issue?"
He spent 10 minutes supporting the assertion that Craig's arguments are ultimately based on emotional reasons, as Craig himself admits when push come to shove (and more so when he is talking to "his own").
"from a purely scientific perspective, if there was a God, what type of evidence would one expect to find?"
Special creation instead of creatures deriving from a long evolutionary process comes to mind. And if one adds(...)
like many theists do, that mankind is essentially what really matters in the universe, I would also humans to be present more widely (both in space and time). I'd also, in that case, expect a being of that nature to interact with humans in non ambiguous ways.
All of these (and more) seem to me to be perfectly reasonable things to expect given the premise "a highly powerful being created the universe". (...)
(...) Instead of that the universe is such that many if not most theists spend their time arguing for why none of the objective evidence one might expect is present, even sometimes going so far as saying that god would be forcing them to believe in him, only to them come and basically contradict that by claiming that the available "evidence" is undeniable. Personally I find that tidbit of cognitive dissonance rather amusing.
@uvauva2 okay, maybe you misunderstand my question, i don't want your opinion on how you feel God should have revealed Himself if He existed. I could easily argue that most Christians would say that God has dealt with them in a way that is not at all ambiguous, but what type of objective, testable, evidence should exist, if, in fact, God exists?
""hold in your hand and put under a microscope" type of evidence should exist?"
Your understanding of what science is abysmal...
"maybe you misunderstand my question, i don't want your opinion on how you feel God should have revealed Himself if He existed."
No, I didn't misunderstand anything at all. I define "a god" as some powerful being, with maybe the added attribute of having created the universe. Given THAT definition, I would most definitely expect evidence of all the forms(...)
@uvauva2 my understanding of what science is is abysmal? BWAHAHAHAHA! i probably should have mentioned this before, um, my background is in theoretical physics. you know general relativity, specific relativity, cosmogony, cosmology, etc. and you essentially answered the question "what evidence would you expect to find" with "the objective kind" wow. okay so here is the basics of the scientific method for you. (see next post)
"my background is in theoretical physics. you know general relativity, specific relativity, cosmogony, cosmology, etc."
If THAT is your background I almost wonder why you called "special relativity" by "specific relativity". You are obviously no physicist, and your "description" of the scientific method is pretty dreadful. Here's a proper one (particularly if you do have any sort of background in physics):
A@uvauva2 actually, my grammatical error is due to my phone autocorrecting me and my not noticing. Again you are avoiding my question. You claim there is no evidence for God. Okay. So then what evidence would you expect to see?
Form a model -> Derive consequences that would be empirically observable but not expected if your model was false (i.e. devise a test to falsify it) -> Test them -> Reject the hypothesis should the test fail, tentatively accept it if not, pending further tests.
"if there is a God, as described by the Bible, what specific evidence would be reasonable to expect to find?"
Is this a joke? How many times now have I mentioned "special creation"?
@uvauva2 we are going to test my hypothesis. my hypothesis is that the God described by the Bible, exists and is responsible for the formation and state of the universe. so, in order to scrutinize this hypothesis before testing to ensure potential validity, we must agree upon what observable evidence does or does not exist before testing, so we know what to test, and what results to expect from those tests should they be either successful or not. got it?
(...)I listed. And I'll point out that "special creation" vs "evolution" isn't even a matter of how god would reveal himself, so you are strawman-ing right there.
But you, on the other hand, define god as something with no testable trace, and hence, to me, irrelevant.It is hardly surprising you can't test something defined SO AS TO BE untestable.
"I could easily argue that most Christians would say that God has dealt with them in a way that is not at all ambiguous"
@uvauva2 No, ultimately what he is doing is failing to address Craig's arguments at all. He is trying to undermine them with bad psychology and oversimplified reasoning. Remember what he said at the beginning; that he doesn't just agree with the experts but thinks for himself? "Gee, this guy sure is arrogant isn't he, to think a novice with no education in the subject can figure out more than those who study it. Clearly he is letting his own bias guide his ideas and critiques."
"ultimately what he is doing is failing to address Craig's arguments at all"
False. He is doing two distinct things: points instances where Craig himself admits that, when push comes to shove, his arguments are actually based on feeling, and the underhanded tactics he uses to hide it; explaining to those of us who are mystified about how a man like Craig can spout such fundamentally stupid arguments with such confidence. Maybe you feel the later has no place in a debate, (...)
@uvauva2 His arguments are not based on feeling. He doesn't just feel that way. I can't speak for WLC of course, but I find it humorous that this tactic is being employed. As I have said and will say again and again, we all have psychological bias and are not as rational as we might pretend. Now Price can put up fronts all he wants, but I care more to hear him address real arguments, not hiding and trying to lob over reasons we shouldn't trust WLC's reasoning or logic.
though I disagree, and, quite frankly, that is the part I actually care about in this statement. Pointing the flaws in Craig's argument is trivial; what is really interesting to me is understanding how the man manages to keep himself from realizing that.
@uvauva2 You did not address this, but I didn't give it much context either. What I was trying to demonstrate is that one could play this very same game with Price if they wished. Price said he doesn't always trust experts and thinks for himself. One could easily twist that around to say that Price is arrogant and ignorant. That he agrees with experts sometimes, but conveniently ignores them and "thinks for himself" in areas that he doesn't agree with. But that isn't an argument.
"Price said he doesn't always trust experts and thinks for himself. One could easily twist that around to say that Price is arrogant and ignorant."
I didn't answer that because I had no idea what you were saying: the phrase construction was poor, IMO.
And actually I do disagree with Price there, at least in the way he expressed himself (though I do not think there is such a thing as an "expert" when it comes to many of these topics). But that doesn't address Craigs faults
@uvauva2 Yeah, that first phrase is a bit poor I will admit.
But it does address Craig's supposed faults because it is an example of the tactic Price is using here. I can easily manipulate what he says to make the same kind of points he is attempting to make against Craig. If you feel this is not relevant, then consider my objection when I say that such opening remarks are not relevant to the debate at all. If Price wishes to open this can of worms, I can play the same game.
"If Price wishes to open this can of worms, I can play the same game."
Are you an 8 year old? "oh yeah, you do too" isn't an excuse for your (or in this case, Craig's) faults.
Frankly I don't know Price enough to make judgement on him (this is the first time I ever heard of him), but I do know Craig's arguments and debate tactics quite well, and just about every flaw Price listed was spot on.
And this IS relevant to the debate. The problem with Craig's arguments is precisely (...)
@uvauva2 I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that it was childish to apply the same standards one is using to critique someone else onto everybody else, including the one doing the critique.
So what aspect of the cosmological argument for God, or the ontological argument for God has an emotional basis? Oh right, you're basically saying, like Price, that WLC is an emotional, irrational liar who doesn't really need to be debated and refuted since you can topple his credibility beforehand.
"I wasn't aware that it was childish to apply the same standards one"
It is childish to pretend that your faults should be ignored if someone in the opposition shares them yes. THAT is what you are actually doing: you're not "applying the same standards", you are attempting to "excuse yourself", or in this case, WLC.
"So what aspect of the cosmological argument for God, or the ontological argument for God has an emotional basis?"
They are ultimately circular. The definition (...)
@uvauva2 Hmm.. never saw this in the main comments area, looked it up and it was marked as spam. Anyways...
I'm not saying his faults should be ignored, but if one really wants to dredge up the issue of how we reason through different questions as Price is attempting to do, then we shouldn't banter about but should look at psychological research showing how flawed we all are. We're all guilty, so this is not a unique point against WLC.
@uvauva2 Should his faults be ignored? No. If he is lying through his teeth, presenting lousy arguments, etc. then he should be pointed out. If his supposed flaws are what we all exhibit as part of being human (which psychological research demonstrates how emotional we are over logical), Price's supposed points are not unique to WLC, but are true for everybody. They're pointless.
I was disagreeing with your views on cosmological/ontological arguments. Paragraph break.
"Price's supposed points are not unique to WLC, but are true for everybody. They're pointless."
Two flaws: No, they're not pointless 1) A potential flaw being present in everyone does not mean it is present equally, and much less in all issues. 2) Price provides actual examples 3) You are, again, simplifying Price's argument. Some of the flaws he points to, like the intellectual dishonesty of asking others to claim they find his arguments convincing, are exclusively Craig's.(...)
@uvauva2 1) If everyone has this same flaw, how do you determine when someone passes the critical limit? Do you have a number for this mathematician?
2) And this proves what?
3) Yes, he is giving specific examples that will be unique to Craig or those who share his position (sometimes). Changing over to Price you would have the same bias to critique, you would just have to change the terminology. Price is moved by his personal experience, world view, that espouses naturalism.
"1) If everyone has this same flaw, how do you determine when someone passes the critical limit? Do you have a number for this mathematician?"
By observing the frequency with which that flaws manifests itself. And I said nothing about a "critical limit". What matters is the arguments in which it does.
"that espouses naturalism."
Explain to me how is "espousing naturalism" a position on anything, and not the one logical base position.
"I was disagreeing with your views on cosmological/ontological arguments. Paragraph break."
It's not easy for me to see exactly which comment of mine you are answering to,so I'd appreciate it if you could be more explicit. Also, you have the right to be completely wrong.
"You're calling him a liar;I said that's what you were doing."
No,I wasn't, and I've explained enough: now I'm calling YOU a liar for repeating that idiocy.I've no patience to explain again.(...)
@uvauva2 Yes, well when you write an article that is peer-reviewed by experts in the field of philosophy, I will consider your point more fully. Feel free to, you have the right to be wrong.
No? You are not saying that WLC is a liar? I'm sorry, but when you use words like dishonest, deceptive, etc. my vocabulary tends to associate that with the word liar. Now, do you deny calling WLC dishonest and/or deceptive? If not, why is it wrong to tie the word liar to those terms?
(...) certainty. Do I think the man is dishonest? Yes, because he feels free to strawman opposing positions into unrecognizability. Check this: v=0zcI6nImLyM . I can't describe this as anything other than Craig pretending he is mentally retarded.
Do I think the arguments are deceptive in themselves? Yes, because they all reduce to linguistic conflation when one tries to "axiomatize" them. But that is different from saying that those who came up with them meant them so.They may(...)
(...) of the terms involved already precludes the desired conclusion. In other words, they have the hallmarks of arguments designed not to reach the truth but to reach an a priori conclusion. Price mentions this, by the way.
"Oh right, you're basically saying, like Price, that WLC is an emotional, irrational liar"
My opinion of Craig is more sophisticated than that stawman. I am indeed convinced that at some level WLC does know he is lying when he posits his arguments (...)
@uvauva2 Where is the first part(s) of this comment? You have a mark saying there's an earlier section, and this leaves me without knowing what you were really getting at.
It's really not much of a strawman, when you in fact explain that you do feel that WLC is being dishonest. And you create this argument by saying that WLC is a Christian and values converting people more than dealing with criticism (when in his writings, he addresses all of them). (...)
All three parts appear to me. They start with: "It is childish to pretend that", "of the terms involved" and "as if robust", respectively.
"It's really not much of a strawman, when you in fact explain that you do feel that WLC is being dishonest"
It is a strawman because "he is a liar" captures nothing of the subtlety of my position: Craig's behavior and arguments are so non-sensical to me that I am forced to conclude that they (...)
@uvauva2 Someone is marking random comments of yours as spam, and it isn't being shown (which is odd because they usually will anyways).
Oh, I see. It's not technically wrong, it just isn't nuanced enough. What about his behavior is so non-sensical? I wasn't aware you saw him outside of debates and witnessed bizarre behaviors. His arguments, which are basically classic philosophy, are non-sensical? You are making some non-sensical conclusions. (...)
@uvauva2 You're calling him a liar; I said that's what you were doing. I was slightly off because I didn't understand your mindset. Excuse me for not giving your unfounded accusations more credence.
Oh, okay.. so classic philosophy is non-sensical rubbish. I'm sure you have studied the subject for as long as he has, since he only has a doctorate in the subject. Maybe if you understood philosophy and debate more you'd see why Price's opening remarks are worthless.
"Oh, okay.. so classic philosophy is non-sensical rubbish."
As a matter of fact, yes. The problem with being a mathematician (which I am) and actually understanding logic and what proofs truly are, is that it becomes obvious how invalid just about everything in philosophy is. Philosophers too often and too easily fall victims to the logical problems that led to the foundational crysis of math in the 20th century. If there were more philosophers who understood (...)
@uvauva2 Well again, feel free to convince those who have studied that subject explicitly in universities why they are wrong. Here's a sign that they do consider this subject despite what you propose. I just looked up Russell's Paradox on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy online. They don't give applications of it, but they describe it. Now if a simple resource like that mentions it, do you think it's ignored in class? Maybe you're right, all philosophers are wrong.
"I just looked up Russell's Paradox on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy online"
And? I'm perfectly aware that they describe it. The same would go for other mathematical results with strong philosophical implications like Godel's theorem. But that doesn't mean they understand it, or that they by and large even can: the problem being that these are results concerning rigorous logical structures and philosophers ultimately have (...)
very little contact with that. In a philosophical text you will at most find the odd syllogism here and there (often touted as some achievement). By contrast, your most routine mathematical proof, were it to be reduced to syllogistic/propositional form (as it can), would easily range in the tenths of steps.(...)
@uvauva2 Price's opening remarks are pointless because they are merely an ad hominen on WLC's "character" that does not address the subject at hand.
You defend the things he said with which you agree; is that more apt? My point is that you are ignoring their worthlessness. When you apply the issue of bias (which has more meaning then I think you're aware) you will realize that even if there is some variance, we all operate in essentially the same way. It's human psychology.
"You defend the things he said with which you agree; is that more apt? My point is that you are ignoring their worthlessness."
Nope. You are the one who is smoke screening Craig's faults by an appeal to "everyone does it". But lets try this: how are Price's "tactics" (or what you seem to be viewing as such) fundamentally different from those of Craig employs in the quote starting at 2:46 of this video? (...)
(...) which he says that I find to be cogent and valuable points. And you might to stop such a line of argument: it is sounding way too much like projection on your part.
"Atheists. "Hitchens was spanked like a small child." And Harris.. he wasn't even responding to WLC at all.. so yeah, he dropped the ball."
Did atheists as a whole come together to say that? Was that it? Did I miss the invitation? :( Only a fanboy would say something this stupid.
@uvauva2 If I said atheists that was a typo; I don't know the reference's name, but I figured you would find an atheist resource more valuable then a Christian. In both instances the audience voted in WLC's favor, which again might not mean much to you.
Harris really was not responding to WLC's arguments in the slightest; he essentially prepared talking points beforehand and read them out. He basically says so himself. What was your opinion on these two debates?
"I figured you would find an atheist resource more valuable then a Christian."
Your "source" was "anonymous atheist A"? Seriously?
"What was your opinion on these two debates?"
I saw them a long time ago, so I don't recall much of specifics, but I seem to recall that in the Hitchens debate they basically each talked past each other, with no real conversation, as is often the case. As someone who actually knows the points on both sides with some depth, I always find the debates(...)
(...) useless to me: the topics are always explored in less detail than I know them, and the interaction between the opposing viewpoints is always strawmany at best, as is propitiated by the format itself.
As for Harris, if that was the debate where he presented his thesis for why objective morality exists, then I think I actually liked that one, as I think he (Harris) did a good job. (which isn't something I can say very often, as I don't really like him or his points much) (...)
And frankly, so what if Harris didn't address Craig's arguments? Neither did Craig address Harris'. They were both fundamentally using different (and I think worthwhile) notions of "objective", except Craig refused to admit so in his "refutations". And frankly, after listening to v=UbClnWrUF2Q I don't feel anyone has much of an obligation to address Craig's points, as clearly what the man wants is not dialogue.
(...) are a result of some measure of dishonesty and some measure of plain obliviousness. How much of which I do not know, but I've seen enough of him to be convinced that both are there.
"And you create this argument by saying that WLC is a Christian and values..."
I'm not "creating an argument", if by that you mean that I am trying to undermine Craig's arguments by this. Read the previous paragraph: refuting Craig's arguments is trivial. What mystifies me is what the fuck (...)
@uvauva2 (...) So you conclude, for whatever reason, that WLC is just an incredibly bizarre, irrational sort of person that you cannot comprehend it and it needs an explanation. So without any real evidence, you just conclude, he is horrendously dishonest; which of course was validated by this video you posted by a scholarly person. That sounds a lot like, what was it.. bias?
Yes, refuting his arguments is so trivial, so simple, that's why Hitchens and Harris failed to do so. (...)
(...)"which of course was validated by this video you posted by a scholarly person."
This video validates nothing, but then again, validation is not what I'm looking for. I watch these videos because I find them entertaining. I do however think Price articulated the flaws I find in Craig better than most. (oh, and "I" didn't post the video. I assume that was a typo).
"Yes,refuting his arguments is so trivial, so simple, that's why Hitchens and Harris failed to do so"
@uvauva2 Actually yes, that is odd.. I received a message from the video uploader once, never again, and somehow mixed it up with you. My mistake. But regardless, this video validates what you are saying; WLC is dishonest, and this person agrees with me. That is why I defend his points tooth and nail, despite their gross uselessness in a debate.
Atheists. "Hitchens was spanked like a small child." And Harris.. he wasn't even responding to WLC at all.. so yeah, he dropped the ball.
This just made me laugh. So basically, the problem for those who debate against WLC is not that his arguments such as the KCA are presented so vigorously and well, but that he presents too lousy and weak a version of it that they are then left inept on how to debate against it. It's so dishonest of WLC to not present a higher standard of argument so people could refute it; he is such a snake, playing dumb so we can't beat him. I laugh.
"but that he presents too lousy and weak a version of it that they are then left inept on how to debate against it"
He presents a terminologically simplified version that forces most objection to spend more time defining terminology than he does; a big no-no in a time constrained oral discussion.
The true fallacy here isn't what is done or not in debates: it is your implicit premise that somehow debates are an adequate format in which to discuss complex subtle issues.
@uvauva2 That's strange. I've never heard people debating him having issue with his definitions. In fact I remember where he has had to correct and pry his opponents for them to keep consistent, logically coherent definitions. If somebody presents bad or weak definitions, you refute their argument, and then press them for better definitions. If WLC can do it, so can his opponents.
I'm not saying debate is perfect, but I fail to see why it isn't a valid system.
I missed a "(...)" at the beginning of my last comment. There should be 3 (other comments) this time. And you might want to see a doctor for your giggle problem. Or maybe grow up, one of the two.
as if robust. He knows fair well that there are valid critics and, in fact, much of his academic writings are about dealing with those.All of that is however dishonestly swept under the rug when speaking publicly.IMO he gets not to feel guilty for this dishonest ploy because he fundamentally believes (through feelings) that a god does exist, and he views converting as many as possible (through whatever means) as a greater good than intellectual honesty. Price also nails this.
@uvauva2 (...) I'm sorry, but this is straw-grasping. WLC values converting people as more important than intellectual honesty (even though the whole problem is that he is being too honest by sharing his personal experience). Please demonstrate how you know what's in WLC's mind.
Yes, there are valid critics and criticisms; shame that they are rarely brought up during any of his debates. I suppose that's his fault though for not bringing up points that'd weaken his argument?
@Sickopath333 Bias is one thing. WLC is not just admitting bias, but basically that he's not gonna change his position based on what anyone else says. WLC is putting personal experience above external evidence, and the witness of the Holy Spirit is the last and deciding factor in his world. And I have a feeling that the Holy Spirit isn't exactly gonna start convincing WLC that Christianity is NOT the truth.
@Gnug215 That is a type of bias though. Semantics aside, if you were firmly convinced in the reality of something, would someone's weak statements or arguments that you've refuted time and again suddenly make you shift stances? And I have not seen at any time WLC disagreeing with external evidence. A different interpretation or opinion from some of course, but all evidence has to be interpreted.
@Sickopath333 True, but WLC nonetheless admits (if not here, then in this video: watch?v=S-fDyPU3wlQ ) to never being convinced by external evidence that would controvert his Christian view. That is more than just simple bias if you ask me. It is also intellectually honest, and that also means anything that comes out of his mouth is highly suspect; and any interpretation he brings is subject to his "internal spin".
@Gnug215 Right, this is a good video demonstrating his value of personal experience, the holy spirit, and his faith. Again though, the problem delves into whether or not his arguments and evidence can be trusted or not. If we immediately dismiss them because he seems suspicious we are failing to acknowledge that he may in fact be correct. Craig seems incredibly fallible here, but I think we might be surprised and disappointed that most are guilty of "internal spin," i.e. a worldview.
@Sickopath333 I totally agree with what you're saying, but my issue is really with what you're not saying, and that about the point where WLC values personal experience ABOVE external evidence (if that isn't entirely clear in the reference that Price makes, WLC himself makes it clear in the video I mentioned). He is in his full right to do so, but I think that makes him suspect and intellectually dishonest.
@Gnug215 I suppose in my interpretation it boils down to one's role as a Christian (where do you draw the line on faith; is it blind faith, does it speak in contrast to the wisdom of men, etc.), as well as keeping in mind the limitations of science and epistemology. One way I would phrase the idea would be to recognize that historically we have made erroneous conclusions in the realm of science, so we shouldn't blindly invest all of our convictions based on what modern science says.
@Sickopath333 Yes, it is very important to keep in mind that science has made (and will make) mistakes - or rather, that people involved made (make) mistakes. Science is a process, it makes tentative conclusions.
You know as well as I do that science has, for the most part, moved closer to the truth, and we've uncovered more and more explanations for previously "supernatural" phenomenons. Science has the better track record there.
@Gnug215 Ah, and yes overly idealistic has a nice ring to it; didn't know how to phrase it.
"Tentative" conclusions. I don't think the history supports that notion. Human beings are not nearly humble enough for that. Every generation thinks, we have it figured it now; our ancestors were fools, but we have our heads on right.
Until quite recently science was very religiously grounded, and it has made some very humorous conclusions in the past. Not sure about its great track record.
@Sickopath333 I don't know about you, but I'm constantly reading about scientists talking about how there's much left to be discovered and such.
The track record is not perfect in that it is indeed riddled with mistakes, but it is a good track record in what it has given us. We understand many phenomena, and we enjoy immense amounts of technological advances.
@Gnug215 Yes, scientists are always excited about what they don't know. That doesn't mean that they are at all humble about what they currently purport to know. Man, we still know so little.. but what we do know far outweights what was known in the past, and what we know is correct now.
It has given us many goods, so it is a good track record? Are you forgetting the evils done in the name of science? Things such as sterilization of the mentally deficient?
@Sickopath333 I'm not forgetting the evils at all, no. And not to be childish, but I'd like to point to the evils done in the name of religion at this juncture. Why? Because comparing the two, in terms of good and evil, I think science wins out, at least in terms of it being the more reliable of those two "methods" when it comes to improving lives. The track record there is at least steadily moving forward. Not sure what one could say about religion.
@Sickopath333 Again, this doesn't harm WLC's arguments, but in my view, I think that justifies people in wanting to dismiss him as someone they'd want to debate. In my mind, debates should be just that, debates, and not just platforms for preaching one's personal conviction, without having any expectation or intent on changing one's mind if new evidence and good arguments are presented.
@Gnug215 This is a somewhat.. "misguided" view on debate though I would say. I think that one should be open to confessing mistakes or that they were defeated in a debate, but that would be a premature reason to suddenly convert (if not, why haven't WLC's defeated opponents converted?). Debate, as long as it isn't for practice (take the side you disagree with) will always involve both sides "preaching" the ideas they believe in. If they didn't do that, you wouldn't have a debate.
@Sickopath333 I'd go with it "overly idealistic" view on debate, but alright. ;)
The sides should indeed be open to confessing mistakes, yes, but I'm not seeing WLC doing that. In his view, the only mistakes he can make is if he misinterprets evidence to go against his Christian conviction. The proper way of interpreting such evidence is only revealed when it supports his conviction. (Again, here I'm mostly referring to what he states in that other video about doubt.)
@Gnug215 Again, when he defeats opponents, do we see them confessing their mistakes, or further yet admitting that their stance isn't as strong as they thought and are not questioning themselves? Of course not. So what you perceive as deception, in reality is different or exaggerated then what those who speak for their other side do as well. Do atheists not interpret evidence in such a way that it supports their convictions? This is what a worldview is and does, we all do this.
@Sickopath333 I haven't really seen him "defeat" opponents. To me, that would require a fair amount of evidence that undermines the opponent's position.He may have outwitted some, or "out-rhetoricized" them, but I've never seen him "win". If someone really had good evidence presented against their position, I would certainly think that they would question themselves. I know I would, although, again, I realize and accept that I'm biased, so it would be an uphill battle. (cont.)
@Gnug215 That depends on your view of evidence (epistemology). We all work in the same world, and for the most part have similar access to the evidence (our world, humanity, existence, the universe, etc.). I see your point, but I think you undermine what are sometimes clear victories in these debates. Besides, with ultimate questions what startling evidence could one present that would suddenly sway the other side? Dear God... you're right, there is an almighty Lord... I'm so sorry.
@Sickopath333 I suppose that our individual bias will also (for the most part) affect our experience of who actually wins such debates. In my experience, WLC might "corner" someone, but if he doesn't really deal with the opposing position itself, then that "defeat" of the guy arguing for "my side" will not be clear to me at all.
But yes, what startling evidence indeed... I think this conclusion demonstrates more than anything that debates about this stuff are rather "useless".
@Gnug215 That depends on your view of evidence (epistemology). We all work in the same world, and for the most part have similar access to the evidence (our world, humanity, existence, the universe, etc.). I see your point, but I think you undermine what are sometimes clear victories in these debates. Besides, with ultimate questions what startling evidence could one present that would suddenly sway the other side? Dear God... you're right, there is an almighty Lord... I'm so sorry.
@Sickopath333 But the issue here isn't simple bias. WLC is saying (in that other vid) that no evidence would controvert the witness of the Holy Spirit in his heart. That goes beyond bias. That's stating in absolute terms that nothing will change his mind, ever. (I doubt the Holy Spirit would ever start witnessing AGAINST Christianity in his heart...)
Atheist may be (are) biased, but they don't decide that nothing will ever change their mind because something inside them says so.
@Gnug215 I do find his conviction perhaps unusual, but this is explained by the issue of personal experience. Even if you were fully against, let's say fairies, yet next week you saw dozens of fairies.. you would be highly suspect, but unless you believed you were going mad or your senses were invalid, you'd start to believe they were real. If that makes sense.
Perhaps not in the same language, but I think you'd be hardpressed to say atheists don't hold firmly onto their (dis)belief.
@Sickopath333 Your analogy makes sense, but if we move it into the current situation, what WLC is saying is analogous to him holding firmly that the fairies do exist, and NOTHING would make him change his mind, even evidence suggesting he were going mad or the like.
Mind you, this is even granting that the personal experience in question is experienced through the senses, and NOT through a flimsy, intangible "witness of the Holy Spirit in my heart".
"personal existential interaction with the gospel" And that in a sentence where Craig accuses *others* of throwing up a smoke screen? Talk about chutzpah.
I’m disappointed with this vid. I thought he would tear down Craigs arguments but instead he went for the few times Craig has to talk like a Christian and say something that can’t be proved or requires faith. At some point Craig has to say something that requires him to be a Christian, like Christianity being the one true religion even though this can’t be proved or is academic.
@BizzoMustard " I thought he would tear down Craigs arguments but instead he went for the few times Craig has to talk like a Christian and say something that can’t be proved or requires faith." the problem is, Craig's whole "even if there were a valid logical argument against God, I'd still be a Christian because of my "personal experience""shows him to be disingenuous and nothing more than a professional debater trying to score points and make the choir feel better about their faith
Green Lantern, Batman, Flash, Hulk, Spiderman, Aquaman, no no no, those were comic books, BUT SUPERMAN, now, that really happened. I don't see why you people keep bringing all those other evidently mythical figures. It's obvious that previous to superman were fabrications, and posterior to supermen were imitations. Idiots.
"Price later has the audacity to try to inject Greco Roman mythologies, where it would be obvious that they adopted similarities from the account of Jesus. And Craig did point out that these similarities were incidental. "
It is amazing how christians love the demonic tale of a god telling a man to burn his son as he is jealous and needs to know if Abram loves the son more.Gen22.Even though god forbid killing in Gen9,even though god hates burning children and instructs us not to do this or learn to do it,HE ORDERS ABRAM TO BURN SON.
Doesn't god know the intent of the heart?James1 said god will NOT tempt with evil.Christians love washing in blood and pretend to drink blood...wicked stuff.
Deu12:30-31 We are not to learn way of wicked.They do what is detestable to god.They burn their children as sacrifices.We are not to learn this pagan demonic practice. Yet,YWHW teaches Abram how to burn his son.Instead of Abram obeying god's command prohibiting murder,he follows a demonic voice and attempts to kill and burn Isaac Abrams second,NOT FIRST,son.
Christians also loves where YWHW has a tastee virgin burn to himself.What a sweet savour to god's nostrols.Judg11
@MayonR "Price accuses Craig of appeal to authority but failed to note that Craig listed the facts that point to the veracity."
Facts? What facts? Craig has no use for them and they only appear in his arguments by accident.
"Price later has the audacity to try to inject Greco Roman mythologies, where it would be obvious that they adopted similarities from the account of Jesus."
Are you saying that Nicea (325 AD) predated Greek and pagan mythology, or even that Jesus did?
@Terncote [[Facts? What facts?]] He presents the facts in every debate for a couple decades at least. And of course he considers the facts. It's just that the facts in a case aren't where the foundation of a believer is. Not everyone is interested in historiography. But the common thread is a faith relying on one's own personal experience.
@Terncote [[Are you saying that Nicea (325 AD) predated Greek and pagan mythology, or even that Jesus did?]] You are talking about a council that existed centuries after the fact. And the parallels are posited to be many centuries before, not in the same era. If they were in the same era and the similarities were close enough,would be considered to have come from the historical account.
Price accuses Craig of appeal to authority but failed to note that Craig listed the facts that point to the veracity. If he mentions atheists who agree it is still not appeal to authority because the truth value is not based on who agrees but what they agree on. Price later has the audacity to try to inject Greco Roman mythologies, where it would be obvious that they adopted similarities from the account of Jesus. And Craig did point out that these similarities were incidental.
As much as I find Craig annoying, I feel like this is too close to an ad hominem rather than an appraisal imho.
GL12878 8 hours ago
Price outlines clearly what i find so insincere about wlc...skeptically pwned should do a sketch where the kick him in the nuts right where he delivers his infamous 'even if all of my arguments fail or new evidence disproves them the witness of the holy spirit vindicates my belief' bit.
michiko38 10 hours ago
The more I read Christian apologetics, the more I realize that even the most educated, prolific and well-respected apologists have very lousy, shaky and pathetic arguments.
tekbarrier 1 day ago 2
Price really had his ass handed to him in this debate. He was really fun to listen to though.
lexidart 4 days ago
Why isn't this comment section censored like the Christian members' videos? Why do they fear the truth so much? Christians are so transparent and in denial, it's just ridiculous...
Stryc9Nine 6 days ago
All Dr.Craig did was be honest about His presuppositions..Too bad Dr.Price has a blind spot there.
SanEverett 6 days ago
I don't see why Craig would need to change his arguments for each debate if it is on the same topic. You come up with arguments that you believe are sound, so why change them... unless of course they are proven to be implausible.
martiandog89 1 week ago
@martiandog89 what calls my attention is that he never enters into new debates, and when invited he forces the title of the debate into something where he can use his battle horse. Also, maybe for you an argument is a sillogism. I've seen Price make his arguments even richer through every debate. Evidence of learning and research.
sirdelrio 1 week ago
@sirdelrio Yeah, but the stuff he has debated about is among the more interesting stuff. What kind of stuff should he be trying to debate? The church doctrine?
martiandog89 1 week ago
@sirdelrio I think that is really all that can come from a debate about God. There is certainly not going to be any evidence on earth about God's existence. That would be him saying "I'm going to prove God tonight" which he does not. He has showed in his debates that they might as well be agnostics.
martiandog89 1 week ago
@martiandog89 Problem is(sorry for meddling!)is that his arguments have been PROVEN implausible over and over.Yet he insists on using them.
kafkazinho 1 week ago
@kafkazinho How are they implausible?
martiandog89 1 week ago
@martiandog89 A man raise from the dead?How?Did the bacteria turn into dust and his body didnt decompose?
kafkazinho 5 days ago
@kafkazinho I'm not sure. Jews believed in basically the idea of a resurrection being like a zombie. One has to think though that perhaps God made it so that people wouldn't be freaked out by the body (your asking something that a certainly don't know). I do know that the bible asserts that god can basically do amazing things.. in the valley of "dry bones" god causes all the bones to basically be assembled together back into skeletons and then causes flesh to appear and breath life in after...
martiandog89 3 days ago
@kafkazinho Jews also believed in a grand resurrection of everyone.. Jesus resurrecting and then leaving as the messiah was what nobody intended.
martiandog89 3 days ago
@martiandog89 Perhaps he does it because Christianity IS true, and there are therefore many and rich proofs of it. yeah, think I'll go with that one.
ruthamyallan1 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WC Craig is just one more theological spindoctor or sophist riding the banal fact that you can't prove a negative (i.e. "god does not exist"). But: extraordinary claims about an "all-powerful" (a logical fallacy in itself) "all-knowing", "all-good" entity that supposedly created the universe demand extraordinary evidence, but none such is to be had! Also: the deeds of that god (according to the bible as well as to everyday experience) absolutely defy any sound definition of "goodness"!
macmarine 2 weeks ago
I hate to point this out, but I know my mother loves me because I experience it, not because I deduced it. To argue that his faith is purely subjective presupposes knowledge of the nature of faith and whether or not it delivers reality like mom. :-) I incidentally find atheistic materialism utterly incoherent.
Youdamana 2 weeks ago
@Youdamana "I incidentally find atheistic materialism utterly incoherent." You can prove your mom exists I assume, but you cannot prove your god exists. If I said a giant fluffy glaxlox loves me, that does not make it true. Arguments about proving it does not exist before doubting its existence or arguments based on my testimony that I 'feel' its presence would not convince many. Theists dismiss thousands of god claims, but cannot apply it to their own god. Its a blind spot.
AMomentOfClarity2011 4 days ago
Excellent case overview and speaker, thanks for posting.
AutoBahnForever 2 weeks ago
All this guy did was expose himself in a sense of how he understands things. He says that quite a few times- "..as I understand..." so no real shock or real significant revelation here.
82dr89bg 2 weeks ago 2
@82dr89bg mmm, do you understand sarcasm? and this speech is perhaps one of the greatest examples of critical thinking, the fine threading, the multiple points of view used to demolish Craig's historical research methodology.
sirdelrio 1 week ago 2
@sirdelrio Are you trying to convince me of something?
82dr89bg 1 week ago
Who cares price debate him or it doesn't count anybody can shadow box. Bruce lee said it best in enter the dragon to o'hara board don't hit back .
MegaSleep1 2 weeks ago
I laugh at the pathetic attempt by you atheist who can't win an argument with the facts so you maker personal attacks instead. Give it up guys, you know you are wrong if you just open your mind and heart and look at the real facts and real information from a objective view point, including what is in your in gut instincts. No need to reply because I won't bother with Youtube message tag arguments, which is so important to you folks to make yourself feel good about your little insecure life.
MegaDude1969 2 weeks ago
@MegaDude1969
"No need to reply because I won't bother with Youtube message tag arguments, which is so important to you folks to make yourself feel good about your little insecure life."
Yes, this has no importance to you at all, which is why you felt the need to comment. If I may be so bold, I'd suggest the actual reason you won't respond is because you know, through experience, that you can't hold your own on a discussion.
uvauva2 2 weeks ago 6
@MegaDude1969 who's life is little and insecure? the one who relies in his own criterium, and accepts uncertainty, or those holding on to supernatural protection? And if you think it was an adhominem, then you need to watch it again, because it's about "if your methodology is sloppy, your results might be too".
sirdelrio 2 weeks ago 8
@sirdelrio I don't know why someone would call you insecure. You seem really bold and proud to me... kind of like the man who built his house on the sands, rather than the rock. Hopefully philosophy and wisdom of the flesh will help you in your understanding of why things exist, yet I have my doubts that it even can in any sense of reconciling the unique human condition. Seek and maybe you will find. Hint: the first step is the entertainment of agnosticism.
martiandog89 1 week ago
@martiandog89 what you call 'seek' i understand it as 'self-persuassion'. I don't claim to be an expert, but i'm no kid either. In science is where i can discuss better, cause i'm a grad student. Philosophy i have some background, and biblical history and exegesis, well, i must admit that i've learned from Price's podcasts, that render every apologist a simple rookie. I don't buy, i contrast points of view. I think i will no longer postpone posting Price's podcasts.
sirdelrio 1 week ago
@MegaDude1969 What's funny is that the truth is the complete opposite of what you state. A scientist observes the facts and certain truths to describe the world in an empirical manner. Science does not go beyond facts or certain truths, unless it is to form theories which later can or can not be proved to be true. Theism goes beyond facts and truths to make claims that cannot be proven or verified in an empirical way.
Madghaar 2 weeks ago
@Madghaar I understand, but the Jews believe that God gave the law to Moses... so really it is kind of just tradition. Moses is one of the few patriarchs that was likely a real person.. Hopefully the Hebrews made that whole thing about the miracle of the parting of the sea (God proving himself Israel, who then preceded to worship idols, yet again which caused Moses to break the blessed 10 commandments). I feel there is a lot of stuff in Judaism that just does not have the marks of divine fiction
martiandog89 1 week ago
Love the video description :)
narco73 2 weeks ago
Loved this guy exposing that asshole WLC
outlaw87100 3 weeks ago
ಠ_ಠ
iT2Mi 3 weeks ago
If god existed we shouldn't be having this conversation. I've come to realize that perhaps NOT KNOWING that he does exist FOR SURE is a necessary component of faith, so quit it apologists.
sirdelrio 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sirdelrio NOT KNOWING that he does exist FOR SURE is a necessary component of blind faith.
zelda0521 2 weeks ago
@uvauva2 im waiting for your proper scientific method. Oh, and please see my previous comment. It was for you but was mislabeled due to my phone playing up.
martyswn 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@martyswn
"im waiting for your proper scientific method. Oh, and please see my previous comment. It was for you but was mislabeled due to my phone playing up."
Are you incapable of reading? Just how many times do I need to repeat my answer? If indeed there existed a god as described in the bible I would expect we would find a world that had been specially created. In particular, I would expect, for instance, the phylogenetic trees obtained from analyzing different genes NOT to match up (...)
uvauva2 3 weeks ago
@martyswn
(...) and much less for them to produce the same chronologies.
And for the record, again, you are no physicist. I know quite a few, being an actual mathematician.
uvauva2 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
Sickopath333 1 month ago
Comment removed
Sickopath333 1 month ago
WLC's statements are just the combined conclusions of his ideas, and psychology demonstrates that more often than not it isn't logic or evidence that determines one's position.
What Price is trying to do is dismiss WLC as an illogical force. His idea that WLC writing to people who agree with him being different then in a debate as an argument is silly; do atheists not take certain things for granted when they communicate with like-minded peers? Thus far I am not impressed with his points.
Sickopath333 1 month ago
Actually freely admitting one's bias ahead of time should not be a factor in whether or not their reasoning is accurate. Psychological studies have demonstrated time and time again that people are very biased, and in more than one way. One is something akin to where you study a new subject and when you find something you find plausible and pallatable, you stop looking for more evidence or information. So far Price hasn't demonstrated that WLC is being erroneous, just perhaps too honest.
Sickopath333 1 month ago
@Sickopath333 oh no no, there's more in Price's critique than the bias. And i think you just didn't get the point. The special pleading, the arguments from authority, THE DOUBLE TRUTH MODEL (no bias precisely, more than that), biblical inerrancy (the historical facts of the bible).
sirdelrio 1 month ago
@sirdelrio Yes but you see this guy just picked the one thing that he thought he was able to argue against and posted a comment about it. There should be a user's manual for brains, telling people when to express their opinion and when not to unless all they want is waste the time of all the people who read it. I hope I didn't waste your time, truly.
heloizyjhenifer 1 month ago in playlist susskind
@sirdelrio I only provided one example of bias. As my point is, Price is merely trying to paint WLC as a fallacious source, describing his thought processes as irrational or in error, instead of actually taking his arguments and responding to them. Citing experts in a field you are not yourself an expert in is not fallacious; saying that they are right just because they are experts is, but is WLC doing that? Of course not. As I said, he's trying to discredit WLC, which is weak.
Sickopath333 1 month ago
@Sickopath333
"Of course not. As I said, he's trying to discredit WLC, which is weak."
Not really. Ultimately what he is doing is exhibiting just how Craig's arguments are ultimately circular and grounded in personal feelings. It would be right to say that this does discredit Craig, but that's merely because they portray him accurately.
uvauva2 4 weeks ago
@uvauva2 I hate to jump in here but, his critique of wlc is easily refuted. wlc does believe in God for personal reasons.his arguments may not be the basis for his belief, but this does not disqualify them. i can accept that a good meal strengthens me purely on my feeling that it does so. whether or not i can explain or even understand nutrition and digestion does not undo it's effect. i can trust my feelings in the matter.
martyswn 4 weeks ago
@martyswn
"i can trust my feelings in the matter."
Are you by this trying to imply that feelings themselves are a valid reason to believing in a god? Because you seem on the verge of doing so. Clarify, please.
"his arguments may not be the basis for his belief, but this does not disqualify them."
Did you even listen to the video? Part of what Price does is exhibit how ultimately Craig's arguments are based on feelings, not objective analysis.
uvauva2 4 weeks ago
@uvauva2 are you attempting to imply that there is no validity in personal experience? and i did listen to the video. there is one thing Price did not do: refute any of Craig's actual premises or conclusions.
martyswn 3 weeks ago
@martyswn
"are you attempting to imply that there is no validity in personal experience?"
As far as divining the details of the workings of the universe, very little, yes. Undisciplined personal experience gives you information about personal experience itself, and not much else.
"there is one thing Price did not do: refute any of Craig's actual premises or conclusions. "
This is his introductory speech. He has no obligation (nor does it make sense) to address opposing points at this time.
uvauva2 3 weeks ago
@uvauva2 so he spent 10 minutes not actually addressing the issue? and unless i have some reason not to trust my basic sense perceptions, my personal experiences tell me quite a lot about the universe with which i come in contact. let me ask you this, from a purely scientific perspective, if there was a God, what type of evidence would one expect to find?
martyswn 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@martyswn
"so he spent 10 minutes not actually addressing the issue?"
He spent 10 minutes supporting the assertion that Craig's arguments are ultimately based on emotional reasons, as Craig himself admits when push come to shove (and more so when he is talking to "his own").
"from a purely scientific perspective, if there was a God, what type of evidence would one expect to find?"
Special creation instead of creatures deriving from a long evolutionary process comes to mind. And if one adds(...)
uvauva2 3 weeks ago
@martyswn
(...)
like many theists do, that mankind is essentially what really matters in the universe, I would also humans to be present more widely (both in space and time). I'd also, in that case, expect a being of that nature to interact with humans in non ambiguous ways.
All of these (and more) seem to me to be perfectly reasonable things to expect given the premise "a highly powerful being created the universe". (...)
uvauva2 3 weeks ago
@martyswn
(...) Instead of that the universe is such that many if not most theists spend their time arguing for why none of the objective evidence one might expect is present, even sometimes going so far as saying that god would be forcing them to believe in him, only to them come and basically contradict that by claiming that the available "evidence" is undeniable. Personally I find that tidbit of cognitive dissonance rather amusing.
uvauva2 3 weeks ago
@uvauva2 okay, maybe you misunderstand my question, i don't want your opinion on how you feel God should have revealed Himself if He existed. I could easily argue that most Christians would say that God has dealt with them in a way that is not at all ambiguous, but what type of objective, testable, evidence should exist, if, in fact, God exists?
martyswn 3 weeks ago
@martyswn or to be more accurate, what type of "hold in your hand and put under a microscope" type of evidence should exist?
martyswn 3 weeks ago
@martyswn
""hold in your hand and put under a microscope" type of evidence should exist?"
Your understanding of what science is abysmal...
"maybe you misunderstand my question, i don't want your opinion on how you feel God should have revealed Himself if He existed."
No, I didn't misunderstand anything at all. I define "a god" as some powerful being, with maybe the added attribute of having created the universe. Given THAT definition, I would most definitely expect evidence of all the forms(...)
uvauva2 3 weeks ago
@uvauva2 my understanding of what science is is abysmal? BWAHAHAHAHA! i probably should have mentioned this before, um, my background is in theoretical physics. you know general relativity, specific relativity, cosmogony, cosmology, etc. and you essentially answered the question "what evidence would you expect to find" with "the objective kind" wow. okay so here is the basics of the scientific method for you. (see next post)
martyswn 3 weeks ago
@martyswn
"my background is in theoretical physics. you know general relativity, specific relativity, cosmogony, cosmology, etc."
If THAT is your background I almost wonder why you called "special relativity" by "specific relativity". You are obviously no physicist, and your "description" of the scientific method is pretty dreadful. Here's a proper one (particularly if you do have any sort of background in physics):
(...)
uvauva2 3 weeks ago
A@uvauva2 actually, my grammatical error is due to my phone autocorrecting me and my not noticing. Again you are avoiding my question. You claim there is no evidence for God. Okay. So then what evidence would you expect to see?
martyswn 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@martyswn
(...)
Form a model -> Derive consequences that would be empirically observable but not expected if your model was false (i.e. devise a test to falsify it) -> Test them -> Reject the hypothesis should the test fail, tentatively accept it if not, pending further tests.
"if there is a God, as described by the Bible, what specific evidence would be reasonable to expect to find?"
Is this a joke? How many times now have I mentioned "special creation"?
uvauva2 3 weeks ago
@uvauva2 we are going to test my hypothesis. my hypothesis is that the God described by the Bible, exists and is responsible for the formation and state of the universe. so, in order to scrutinize this hypothesis before testing to ensure potential validity, we must agree upon what observable evidence does or does not exist before testing, so we know what to test, and what results to expect from those tests should they be either successful or not. got it?
martyswn 3 weeks ago
@uvauva2 so again i ask. if there is a God, as described by the Bible, what specific evidence would be reasonable to expect to find?
martyswn 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@martyswn
(...)I listed. And I'll point out that "special creation" vs "evolution" isn't even a matter of how god would reveal himself, so you are strawman-ing right there.
But you, on the other hand, define god as something with no testable trace, and hence, to me, irrelevant.It is hardly surprising you can't test something defined SO AS TO BE untestable.
"I could easily argue that most Christians would say that God has dealt with them in a way that is not at all ambiguous"
Meaningless babble.
uvauva2 3 weeks ago
@uvauva2 No, ultimately what he is doing is failing to address Craig's arguments at all. He is trying to undermine them with bad psychology and oversimplified reasoning. Remember what he said at the beginning; that he doesn't just agree with the experts but thinks for himself? "Gee, this guy sure is arrogant isn't he, to think a novice with no education in the subject can figure out more than those who study it. Clearly he is letting his own bias guide his ideas and critiques."
Sickopath333 3 weeks ago
@Sickopath333
"ultimately what he is doing is failing to address Craig's arguments at all"
False. He is doing two distinct things: points instances where Craig himself admits that, when push comes to shove, his arguments are actually based on feeling, and the underhanded tactics he uses to hide it; explaining to those of us who are mystified about how a man like Craig can spout such fundamentally stupid arguments with such confidence. Maybe you feel the later has no place in a debate, (...)
uvauva2 3 weeks ago
@uvauva2 His arguments are not based on feeling. He doesn't just feel that way. I can't speak for WLC of course, but I find it humorous that this tactic is being employed. As I have said and will say again and again, we all have psychological bias and are not as rational as we might pretend. Now Price can put up fronts all he wants, but I care more to hear him address real arguments, not hiding and trying to lob over reasons we shouldn't trust WLC's reasoning or logic.
Sickopath333 3 weeks ago
@Sickopath333
(...)
though I disagree, and, quite frankly, that is the part I actually care about in this statement. Pointing the flaws in Craig's argument is trivial; what is really interesting to me is understanding how the man manages to keep himself from realizing that.
uvauva2 3 weeks ago
@uvauva2 You did not address this, but I didn't give it much context either. What I was trying to demonstrate is that one could play this very same game with Price if they wished. Price said he doesn't always trust experts and thinks for himself. One could easily twist that around to say that Price is arrogant and ignorant. That he agrees with experts sometimes, but conveniently ignores them and "thinks for himself" in areas that he doesn't agree with. But that isn't an argument.
Sickopath333 3 weeks ago
@Sickopath333
"Price said he doesn't always trust experts and thinks for himself. One could easily twist that around to say that Price is arrogant and ignorant."
I didn't answer that because I had no idea what you were saying: the phrase construction was poor, IMO.
And actually I do disagree with Price there, at least in the way he expressed himself (though I do not think there is such a thing as an "expert" when it comes to many of these topics). But that doesn't address Craigs faults
uvauva2 3 weeks ago
@uvauva2 Yeah, that first phrase is a bit poor I will admit.
But it does address Craig's supposed faults because it is an example of the tactic Price is using here. I can easily manipulate what he says to make the same kind of points he is attempting to make against Craig. If you feel this is not relevant, then consider my objection when I say that such opening remarks are not relevant to the debate at all. If Price wishes to open this can of worms, I can play the same game.
Sickopath333 3 weeks ago
@Sickopath333
"If Price wishes to open this can of worms, I can play the same game."
Are you an 8 year old? "oh yeah, you do too" isn't an excuse for your (or in this case, Craig's) faults.
Frankly I don't know Price enough to make judgement on him (this is the first time I ever heard of him), but I do know Craig's arguments and debate tactics quite well, and just about every flaw Price listed was spot on.
And this IS relevant to the debate. The problem with Craig's arguments is precisely (...)
uvauva2 3 weeks ago
@uvauva2 I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that it was childish to apply the same standards one is using to critique someone else onto everybody else, including the one doing the critique.
So what aspect of the cosmological argument for God, or the ontological argument for God has an emotional basis? Oh right, you're basically saying, like Price, that WLC is an emotional, irrational liar who doesn't really need to be debated and refuted since you can topple his credibility beforehand.
Sickopath333 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Sickopath333
"I wasn't aware that it was childish to apply the same standards one"
It is childish to pretend that your faults should be ignored if someone in the opposition shares them yes. THAT is what you are actually doing: you're not "applying the same standards", you are attempting to "excuse yourself", or in this case, WLC.
"So what aspect of the cosmological argument for God, or the ontological argument for God has an emotional basis?"
They are ultimately circular. The definition (...)
uvauva2 3 weeks ago
@uvauva2 Hmm.. never saw this in the main comments area, looked it up and it was marked as spam. Anyways...
I'm not saying his faults should be ignored, but if one really wants to dredge up the issue of how we reason through different questions as Price is attempting to do, then we shouldn't banter about but should look at psychological research showing how flawed we all are. We're all guilty, so this is not a unique point against WLC.
I will have to respectfully disagree with that.
Sickopath333 3 weeks ago
@Sickopath333
"I'm not saying his faults should be ignored"
"We're all guilty, so this is not a unique point against WLC."
"I will have to respectfully disagree with that."
Are you trying to contradict yourself, or merely articulating yourself poorly?
uvauva2 3 weeks ago
@uvauva2 Should his faults be ignored? No. If he is lying through his teeth, presenting lousy arguments, etc. then he should be pointed out. If his supposed flaws are what we all exhibit as part of being human (which psychological research demonstrates how emotional we are over logical), Price's supposed points are not unique to WLC, but are true for everybody. They're pointless.
I was disagreeing with your views on cosmological/ontological arguments. Paragraph break.
Sickopath333 3 weeks ago
@Sickopath333
"Price's supposed points are not unique to WLC, but are true for everybody. They're pointless."
Two flaws: No, they're not pointless 1) A potential flaw being present in everyone does not mean it is present equally, and much less in all issues. 2) Price provides actual examples 3) You are, again, simplifying Price's argument. Some of the flaws he points to, like the intellectual dishonesty of asking others to claim they find his arguments convincing, are exclusively Craig's.(...)
uvauva2 3 weeks ago
@uvauva2 1) If everyone has this same flaw, how do you determine when someone passes the critical limit? Do you have a number for this mathematician?
2) And this proves what?
3) Yes, he is giving specific examples that will be unique to Craig or those who share his position (sometimes). Changing over to Price you would have the same bias to critique, you would just have to change the terminology. Price is moved by his personal experience, world view, that espouses naturalism.
Sickopath333 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Sickopath333
"1) If everyone has this same flaw, how do you determine when someone passes the critical limit? Do you have a number for this mathematician?"
By observing the frequency with which that flaws manifests itself. And I said nothing about a "critical limit". What matters is the arguments in which it does.
"that espouses naturalism."
Explain to me how is "espousing naturalism" a position on anything, and not the one logical base position.
uvauva2 2 weeks ago
@Sickopath333
"I was disagreeing with your views on cosmological/ontological arguments. Paragraph break."
It's not easy for me to see exactly which comment of mine you are answering to,so I'd appreciate it if you could be more explicit. Also, you have the right to be completely wrong.
"You're calling him a liar;I said that's what you were doing."
No,I wasn't, and I've explained enough: now I'm calling YOU a liar for repeating that idiocy.I've no patience to explain again.(...)
uvauva2 3 weeks ago
@uvauva2 Yes, well when you write an article that is peer-reviewed by experts in the field of philosophy, I will consider your point more fully. Feel free to, you have the right to be wrong.
No? You are not saying that WLC is a liar? I'm sorry, but when you use words like dishonest, deceptive, etc. my vocabulary tends to associate that with the word liar. Now, do you deny calling WLC dishonest and/or deceptive? If not, why is it wrong to tie the word liar to those terms?
Sickopath333 2 weeks ago
@Sickopath333
"Yes, well when you write an article that is peer-reviewed by experts in the field of philosophy, I will consider your point more fully."
The silliness here is that these are points which have been put forth by some such individuals.
"You are not saying that WLC is a liar? I'm sorry, but when you use words like dishonest, deceptive, etc."
Lying is the act of making a claim one knows to be false with the intent to deceive. This I do not think I can accuse Craig of with any (...)
uvauva2 2 weeks ago
@Sickopath333
(...) certainty. Do I think the man is dishonest? Yes, because he feels free to strawman opposing positions into unrecognizability. Check this: v=0zcI6nImLyM . I can't describe this as anything other than Craig pretending he is mentally retarded.
Do I think the arguments are deceptive in themselves? Yes, because they all reduce to linguistic conflation when one tries to "axiomatize" them. But that is different from saying that those who came up with them meant them so.They may(...)
uvauva2 2 weeks ago
@Sickopath333
(...) of the terms involved already precludes the desired conclusion. In other words, they have the hallmarks of arguments designed not to reach the truth but to reach an a priori conclusion. Price mentions this, by the way.
"Oh right, you're basically saying, like Price, that WLC is an emotional, irrational liar"
My opinion of Craig is more sophisticated than that stawman. I am indeed convinced that at some level WLC does know he is lying when he posits his arguments (...)
uvauva2 3 weeks ago
@uvauva2 Where is the first part(s) of this comment? You have a mark saying there's an earlier section, and this leaves me without knowing what you were really getting at.
It's really not much of a strawman, when you in fact explain that you do feel that WLC is being dishonest. And you create this argument by saying that WLC is a Christian and values converting people more than dealing with criticism (when in his writings, he addresses all of them). (...)
Sickopath333 3 weeks ago
@Sickopath333
"Where is the first part(s) of this comment?"
All three parts appear to me. They start with: "It is childish to pretend that", "of the terms involved" and "as if robust", respectively.
"It's really not much of a strawman, when you in fact explain that you do feel that WLC is being dishonest"
It is a strawman because "he is a liar" captures nothing of the subtlety of my position: Craig's behavior and arguments are so non-sensical to me that I am forced to conclude that they (...)
uvauva2 3 weeks ago
@uvauva2 Someone is marking random comments of yours as spam, and it isn't being shown (which is odd because they usually will anyways).
Oh, I see. It's not technically wrong, it just isn't nuanced enough. What about his behavior is so non-sensical? I wasn't aware you saw him outside of debates and witnessed bizarre behaviors. His arguments, which are basically classic philosophy, are non-sensical? You are making some non-sensical conclusions. (...)
Sickopath333 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Sickopath333
"Oh, I see. It's not technically wrong, it just isn't nuanced enough."
You do know that simplifying an opposing position for your convenience is exactly the definition of a straw man, don't you?
"What about his behavior is so non-sensical?"
Presenting nonsense arguments as if robust.
"His arguments, which are basically classic philosophy, are non-sensical?"
Yep.
"So without any real evidence, you just conclude, he is horrendously dishonest;"
Straw man. Reread what I actually(...)
uvauva2 3 weeks ago
@uvauva2 You're calling him a liar; I said that's what you were doing. I was slightly off because I didn't understand your mindset. Excuse me for not giving your unfounded accusations more credence.
Oh, okay.. so classic philosophy is non-sensical rubbish. I'm sure you have studied the subject for as long as he has, since he only has a doctorate in the subject. Maybe if you understood philosophy and debate more you'd see why Price's opening remarks are worthless.
Sickopath333 3 weeks ago
@Sickopath333
"Oh, okay.. so classic philosophy is non-sensical rubbish."
As a matter of fact, yes. The problem with being a mathematician (which I am) and actually understanding logic and what proofs truly are, is that it becomes obvious how invalid just about everything in philosophy is. Philosophers too often and too easily fall victims to the logical problems that led to the foundational crysis of math in the 20th century. If there were more philosophers who understood (...)
uvauva2 3 weeks ago
@uvauva2 Well again, feel free to convince those who have studied that subject explicitly in universities why they are wrong. Here's a sign that they do consider this subject despite what you propose. I just looked up Russell's Paradox on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy online. They don't give applications of it, but they describe it. Now if a simple resource like that mentions it, do you think it's ignored in class? Maybe you're right, all philosophers are wrong.
Sickopath333 2 weeks ago
@Sickopath333
(...) be among the deceived themselves.
"I just looked up Russell's Paradox on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy online"
And? I'm perfectly aware that they describe it. The same would go for other mathematical results with strong philosophical implications like Godel's theorem. But that doesn't mean they understand it, or that they by and large even can: the problem being that these are results concerning rigorous logical structures and philosophers ultimately have (...)
uvauva2 2 weeks ago
@Sickopath333
(...)
very little contact with that. In a philosophical text you will at most find the odd syllogism here and there (often touted as some achievement). By contrast, your most routine mathematical proof, were it to be reduced to syllogistic/propositional form (as it can), would easily range in the tenths of steps.(...)
uvauva2 2 weeks ago
@Sickopath333
(...)
Russel's paradox, there would be less bothering with Kalam.
"Maybe if you understood philosophy and debate more you'd see why Price's opening remarks are worthless."
Maybe if you understood logic more you'd see why THAT remark is worthless?
"That is why I defend his points tooth and nail, despite their gross uselessness in a debate."
I don't defend "his points" tooth and nail. There are at least a couple of things he said I'd disagree with. I will however defend that (...)
uvauva2 3 weeks ago
@uvauva2 Price's opening remarks are pointless because they are merely an ad hominen on WLC's "character" that does not address the subject at hand.
You defend the things he said with which you agree; is that more apt? My point is that you are ignoring their worthlessness. When you apply the issue of bias (which has more meaning then I think you're aware) you will realize that even if there is some variance, we all operate in essentially the same way. It's human psychology.
Sickopath333 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Sickopath333
"You defend the things he said with which you agree; is that more apt? My point is that you are ignoring their worthlessness."
Nope. You are the one who is smoke screening Craig's faults by an appeal to "everyone does it". But lets try this: how are Price's "tactics" (or what you seem to be viewing as such) fundamentally different from those of Craig employs in the quote starting at 2:46 of this video? (...)
uvauva2 2 weeks ago
@Sickopath333
(...) which he says that I find to be cogent and valuable points. And you might to stop such a line of argument: it is sounding way too much like projection on your part.
"Atheists. "Hitchens was spanked like a small child." And Harris.. he wasn't even responding to WLC at all.. so yeah, he dropped the ball."
Did atheists as a whole come together to say that? Was that it? Did I miss the invitation? :( Only a fanboy would say something this stupid.
uvauva2 3 weeks ago
@uvauva2 If I said atheists that was a typo; I don't know the reference's name, but I figured you would find an atheist resource more valuable then a Christian. In both instances the audience voted in WLC's favor, which again might not mean much to you.
Harris really was not responding to WLC's arguments in the slightest; he essentially prepared talking points beforehand and read them out. He basically says so himself. What was your opinion on these two debates?
Sickopath333 2 weeks ago
@Sickopath333
"I figured you would find an atheist resource more valuable then a Christian."
Your "source" was "anonymous atheist A"? Seriously?
"What was your opinion on these two debates?"
I saw them a long time ago, so I don't recall much of specifics, but I seem to recall that in the Hitchens debate they basically each talked past each other, with no real conversation, as is often the case. As someone who actually knows the points on both sides with some depth, I always find the debates(...)
uvauva2 2 weeks ago
@Sickopath333
(...) useless to me: the topics are always explored in less detail than I know them, and the interaction between the opposing viewpoints is always strawmany at best, as is propitiated by the format itself.
As for Harris, if that was the debate where he presented his thesis for why objective morality exists, then I think I actually liked that one, as I think he (Harris) did a good job. (which isn't something I can say very often, as I don't really like him or his points much) (...)
uvauva2 2 weeks ago
@Sickopath333
(...)
And frankly, so what if Harris didn't address Craig's arguments? Neither did Craig address Harris'. They were both fundamentally using different (and I think worthwhile) notions of "objective", except Craig refused to admit so in his "refutations". And frankly, after listening to v=UbClnWrUF2Q I don't feel anyone has much of an obligation to address Craig's points, as clearly what the man wants is not dialogue.
uvauva2 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Sickopath333
(...) are a result of some measure of dishonesty and some measure of plain obliviousness. How much of which I do not know, but I've seen enough of him to be convinced that both are there.
"And you create this argument by saying that WLC is a Christian and values..."
I'm not "creating an argument", if by that you mean that I am trying to undermine Craig's arguments by this. Read the previous paragraph: refuting Craig's arguments is trivial. What mystifies me is what the fuck (...)
uvauva2 3 weeks ago
@uvauva2 (...) So you conclude, for whatever reason, that WLC is just an incredibly bizarre, irrational sort of person that you cannot comprehend it and it needs an explanation. So without any real evidence, you just conclude, he is horrendously dishonest; which of course was validated by this video you posted by a scholarly person. That sounds a lot like, what was it.. bias?
Yes, refuting his arguments is so trivial, so simple, that's why Hitchens and Harris failed to do so. (...)
Sickopath333 3 weeks ago
@Sickopath333
(...)"which of course was validated by this video you posted by a scholarly person."
This video validates nothing, but then again, validation is not what I'm looking for. I watch these videos because I find them entertaining. I do however think Price articulated the flaws I find in Craig better than most. (oh, and "I" didn't post the video. I assume that was a typo).
"Yes,refuting his arguments is so trivial, so simple, that's why Hitchens and Harris failed to do so"
Who says?(...)
uvauva2 3 weeks ago
@uvauva2 Actually yes, that is odd.. I received a message from the video uploader once, never again, and somehow mixed it up with you. My mistake. But regardless, this video validates what you are saying; WLC is dishonest, and this person agrees with me. That is why I defend his points tooth and nail, despite their gross uselessness in a debate.
Atheists. "Hitchens was spanked like a small child." And Harris.. he wasn't even responding to WLC at all.. so yeah, he dropped the ball.
Sickopath333 3 weeks ago
@Sickopath333
(...) goes in the man's head. My statement was the best guess I can make from listening to him.
"WLC values converting people as more important than intellectual honesty"
Actually this comes up in Price's argument. Listen to 4:46 - 5:10.
"Yes, there are valid critics and criticisms; shame that they are rarely brought up during any of his debates."
Those valid criticisms generally require the Kalam be presented in a more rigorous form, which Craig conveniently does not.
uvauva2 3 weeks ago
@uvauva2 (...) Guessing usually works so well.
This just made me laugh. So basically, the problem for those who debate against WLC is not that his arguments such as the KCA are presented so vigorously and well, but that he presents too lousy and weak a version of it that they are then left inept on how to debate against it. It's so dishonest of WLC to not present a higher standard of argument so people could refute it; he is such a snake, playing dumb so we can't beat him. I laugh.
Sickopath333 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Sickopath333
"but that he presents too lousy and weak a version of it that they are then left inept on how to debate against it"
He presents a terminologically simplified version that forces most objection to spend more time defining terminology than he does; a big no-no in a time constrained oral discussion.
The true fallacy here isn't what is done or not in debates: it is your implicit premise that somehow debates are an adequate format in which to discuss complex subtle issues.
uvauva2 3 weeks ago
@uvauva2 That's strange. I've never heard people debating him having issue with his definitions. In fact I remember where he has had to correct and pry his opponents for them to keep consistent, logically coherent definitions. If somebody presents bad or weak definitions, you refute their argument, and then press them for better definitions. If WLC can do it, so can his opponents.
I'm not saying debate is perfect, but I fail to see why it isn't a valid system.
Sickopath333 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
Sickopath333 3 weeks ago
@Sickopath333
I missed a "(...)" at the beginning of my last comment. There should be 3 (other comments) this time. And you might want to see a doctor for your giggle problem. Or maybe grow up, one of the two.
uvauva2 3 weeks ago
@Sickopath333
(...)
as if robust. He knows fair well that there are valid critics and, in fact, much of his academic writings are about dealing with those.All of that is however dishonestly swept under the rug when speaking publicly.IMO he gets not to feel guilty for this dishonest ploy because he fundamentally believes (through feelings) that a god does exist, and he views converting as many as possible (through whatever means) as a greater good than intellectual honesty. Price also nails this.
uvauva2 3 weeks ago
@uvauva2 (...) I'm sorry, but this is straw-grasping. WLC values converting people as more important than intellectual honesty (even though the whole problem is that he is being too honest by sharing his personal experience). Please demonstrate how you know what's in WLC's mind.
Yes, there are valid critics and criticisms; shame that they are rarely brought up during any of his debates. I suppose that's his fault though for not bringing up points that'd weaken his argument?
Sickopath333 3 weeks ago
@Sickopath333
(...)
That they are all smoke and mirrors to hide their fundamental emotional basis. It is never too much to point this.
uvauva2 3 weeks ago
@Sickopath333 Bias is one thing. WLC is not just admitting bias, but basically that he's not gonna change his position based on what anyone else says. WLC is putting personal experience above external evidence, and the witness of the Holy Spirit is the last and deciding factor in his world. And I have a feeling that the Holy Spirit isn't exactly gonna start convincing WLC that Christianity is NOT the truth.
Gnug215 3 weeks ago
@Gnug215 That is a type of bias though. Semantics aside, if you were firmly convinced in the reality of something, would someone's weak statements or arguments that you've refuted time and again suddenly make you shift stances? And I have not seen at any time WLC disagreeing with external evidence. A different interpretation or opinion from some of course, but all evidence has to be interpreted.
Sickopath333 3 weeks ago
@Sickopath333 True, but WLC nonetheless admits (if not here, then in this video: watch?v=S-fDyPU3wlQ ) to never being convinced by external evidence that would controvert his Christian view. That is more than just simple bias if you ask me. It is also intellectually honest, and that also means anything that comes out of his mouth is highly suspect; and any interpretation he brings is subject to his "internal spin".
Gnug215 3 weeks ago
@Gnug215 Right, this is a good video demonstrating his value of personal experience, the holy spirit, and his faith. Again though, the problem delves into whether or not his arguments and evidence can be trusted or not. If we immediately dismiss them because he seems suspicious we are failing to acknowledge that he may in fact be correct. Craig seems incredibly fallible here, but I think we might be surprised and disappointed that most are guilty of "internal spin," i.e. a worldview.
Sickopath333 3 weeks ago
@Sickopath333 I totally agree with what you're saying, but my issue is really with what you're not saying, and that about the point where WLC values personal experience ABOVE external evidence (if that isn't entirely clear in the reference that Price makes, WLC himself makes it clear in the video I mentioned). He is in his full right to do so, but I think that makes him suspect and intellectually dishonest.
Gnug215 3 weeks ago
@Gnug215 I suppose in my interpretation it boils down to one's role as a Christian (where do you draw the line on faith; is it blind faith, does it speak in contrast to the wisdom of men, etc.), as well as keeping in mind the limitations of science and epistemology. One way I would phrase the idea would be to recognize that historically we have made erroneous conclusions in the realm of science, so we shouldn't blindly invest all of our convictions based on what modern science says.
Sickopath333 3 weeks ago
@Sickopath333 Yes, it is very important to keep in mind that science has made (and will make) mistakes - or rather, that people involved made (make) mistakes. Science is a process, it makes tentative conclusions.
You know as well as I do that science has, for the most part, moved closer to the truth, and we've uncovered more and more explanations for previously "supernatural" phenomenons. Science has the better track record there.
Gnug215 3 weeks ago
@Gnug215 Ah, and yes overly idealistic has a nice ring to it; didn't know how to phrase it.
"Tentative" conclusions. I don't think the history supports that notion. Human beings are not nearly humble enough for that. Every generation thinks, we have it figured it now; our ancestors were fools, but we have our heads on right.
Until quite recently science was very religiously grounded, and it has made some very humorous conclusions in the past. Not sure about its great track record.
Sickopath333 3 weeks ago
@Sickopath333 I don't know about you, but I'm constantly reading about scientists talking about how there's much left to be discovered and such.
The track record is not perfect in that it is indeed riddled with mistakes, but it is a good track record in what it has given us. We understand many phenomena, and we enjoy immense amounts of technological advances.
Gnug215 3 weeks ago
@Gnug215 Yes, scientists are always excited about what they don't know. That doesn't mean that they are at all humble about what they currently purport to know. Man, we still know so little.. but what we do know far outweights what was known in the past, and what we know is correct now.
It has given us many goods, so it is a good track record? Are you forgetting the evils done in the name of science? Things such as sterilization of the mentally deficient?
Sickopath333 2 weeks ago
@Sickopath333 I'm not forgetting the evils at all, no. And not to be childish, but I'd like to point to the evils done in the name of religion at this juncture. Why? Because comparing the two, in terms of good and evil, I think science wins out, at least in terms of it being the more reliable of those two "methods" when it comes to improving lives. The track record there is at least steadily moving forward. Not sure what one could say about religion.
Gnug215 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
Sickopath333 2 weeks ago
@Sickopath333 Again, this doesn't harm WLC's arguments, but in my view, I think that justifies people in wanting to dismiss him as someone they'd want to debate. In my mind, debates should be just that, debates, and not just platforms for preaching one's personal conviction, without having any expectation or intent on changing one's mind if new evidence and good arguments are presented.
Gnug215 3 weeks ago
@Gnug215 This is a somewhat.. "misguided" view on debate though I would say. I think that one should be open to confessing mistakes or that they were defeated in a debate, but that would be a premature reason to suddenly convert (if not, why haven't WLC's defeated opponents converted?). Debate, as long as it isn't for practice (take the side you disagree with) will always involve both sides "preaching" the ideas they believe in. If they didn't do that, you wouldn't have a debate.
Sickopath333 3 weeks ago
@Sickopath333 I'd go with it "overly idealistic" view on debate, but alright. ;)
The sides should indeed be open to confessing mistakes, yes, but I'm not seeing WLC doing that. In his view, the only mistakes he can make is if he misinterprets evidence to go against his Christian conviction. The proper way of interpreting such evidence is only revealed when it supports his conviction. (Again, here I'm mostly referring to what he states in that other video about doubt.)
Gnug215 3 weeks ago
@Gnug215 Again, when he defeats opponents, do we see them confessing their mistakes, or further yet admitting that their stance isn't as strong as they thought and are not questioning themselves? Of course not. So what you perceive as deception, in reality is different or exaggerated then what those who speak for their other side do as well. Do atheists not interpret evidence in such a way that it supports their convictions? This is what a worldview is and does, we all do this.
Sickopath333 3 weeks ago
@Sickopath333 I haven't really seen him "defeat" opponents. To me, that would require a fair amount of evidence that undermines the opponent's position.He may have outwitted some, or "out-rhetoricized" them, but I've never seen him "win". If someone really had good evidence presented against their position, I would certainly think that they would question themselves. I know I would, although, again, I realize and accept that I'm biased, so it would be an uphill battle. (cont.)
Gnug215 3 weeks ago
@Gnug215 That depends on your view of evidence (epistemology). We all work in the same world, and for the most part have similar access to the evidence (our world, humanity, existence, the universe, etc.). I see your point, but I think you undermine what are sometimes clear victories in these debates. Besides, with ultimate questions what startling evidence could one present that would suddenly sway the other side? Dear God... you're right, there is an almighty Lord... I'm so sorry.
Sickopath333 2 weeks ago
@Sickopath333 I suppose that our individual bias will also (for the most part) affect our experience of who actually wins such debates. In my experience, WLC might "corner" someone, but if he doesn't really deal with the opposing position itself, then that "defeat" of the guy arguing for "my side" will not be clear to me at all.
But yes, what startling evidence indeed... I think this conclusion demonstrates more than anything that debates about this stuff are rather "useless".
Gnug215 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Gnug215 That depends on your view of evidence (epistemology). We all work in the same world, and for the most part have similar access to the evidence (our world, humanity, existence, the universe, etc.). I see your point, but I think you undermine what are sometimes clear victories in these debates. Besides, with ultimate questions what startling evidence could one present that would suddenly sway the other side? Dear God... you're right, there is an almighty Lord... I'm so sorry.
Sickopath333 2 weeks ago
@Sickopath333 But the issue here isn't simple bias. WLC is saying (in that other vid) that no evidence would controvert the witness of the Holy Spirit in his heart. That goes beyond bias. That's stating in absolute terms that nothing will change his mind, ever. (I doubt the Holy Spirit would ever start witnessing AGAINST Christianity in his heart...)
Atheist may be (are) biased, but they don't decide that nothing will ever change their mind because something inside them says so.
Gnug215 3 weeks ago
@Gnug215 I do find his conviction perhaps unusual, but this is explained by the issue of personal experience. Even if you were fully against, let's say fairies, yet next week you saw dozens of fairies.. you would be highly suspect, but unless you believed you were going mad or your senses were invalid, you'd start to believe they were real. If that makes sense.
Perhaps not in the same language, but I think you'd be hardpressed to say atheists don't hold firmly onto their (dis)belief.
Sickopath333 2 weeks ago
@Sickopath333 Your analogy makes sense, but if we move it into the current situation, what WLC is saying is analogous to him holding firmly that the fairies do exist, and NOTHING would make him change his mind, even evidence suggesting he were going mad or the like.
Mind you, this is even granting that the personal experience in question is experienced through the senses, and NOT through a flimsy, intangible "witness of the Holy Spirit in my heart".
Gnug215 2 weeks ago
Price is awesome! W.L.C. is a true pompous, fake pious asshole to the max, and his childish arguments are shit.
lessevdoolbretsim 1 month ago
see craig molested by robert price in another debate.also craig is viewed by other sceptics and apologists as something of a second rater.
hotstixx 1 month ago
"personal existential interaction with the gospel" And that in a sentence where Craig accuses *others* of throwing up a smoke screen? Talk about chutzpah.
TomFynn 1 month ago
Craig just got spanked!!
jjoneil73 1 month ago
I’m disappointed with this vid. I thought he would tear down Craigs arguments but instead he went for the few times Craig has to talk like a Christian and say something that can’t be proved or requires faith. At some point Craig has to say something that requires him to be a Christian, like Christianity being the one true religion even though this can’t be proved or is academic.
BizzoMustard 1 month ago
@BizzoMustard " I thought he would tear down Craigs arguments but instead he went for the few times Craig has to talk like a Christian and say something that can’t be proved or requires faith." the problem is, Craig's whole "even if there were a valid logical argument against God, I'd still be a Christian because of my "personal experience""shows him to be disingenuous and nothing more than a professional debater trying to score points and make the choir feel better about their faith
BillKiernan 1 month ago
@BillKiernan The problem then lies with the fact noone has yet said anything that is valid and logical.
BizzoMustard 1 month ago
Green Lantern, Batman, Flash, Hulk, Spiderman, Aquaman, no no no, those were comic books, BUT SUPERMAN, now, that really happened. I don't see why you people keep bringing all those other evidently mythical figures. It's obvious that previous to superman were fabrications, and posterior to supermen were imitations. Idiots.
sirdelrio 1 month ago 12
2:49 "... sometimes throw up an intellectual smoke screen ..."
In English: "Man! It would be way easier peddling my shit if people didn't ask questions."
I have to say, I really like RMP's voice. Nice to hear it being used to pwn hacks like WLC.
smhussain62 1 month ago
"Price later has the audacity to try to inject Greco Roman mythologies, where it would be obvious that they adopted similarities from the account of Jesus. And Craig did point out that these similarities were incidental. "
LOL...was that a joke?
FellOnSoundGarden 1 month ago
@FellOnSoundGarden
It is amazing how christians love the demonic tale of a god telling a man to burn his son as he is jealous and needs to know if Abram loves the son more.Gen22.Even though god forbid killing in Gen9,even though god hates burning children and instructs us not to do this or learn to do it,HE ORDERS ABRAM TO BURN SON.
Doesn't god know the intent of the heart?James1 said god will NOT tempt with evil.Christians love washing in blood and pretend to drink blood...wicked stuff.
thedagonjones 1 month ago
@FellOnSoundGarden
Deu12:30-31 We are not to learn way of wicked.They do what is detestable to god.They burn their children as sacrifices.We are not to learn this pagan demonic practice. Yet,YWHW teaches Abram how to burn his son.Instead of Abram obeying god's command prohibiting murder,he follows a demonic voice and attempts to kill and burn Isaac Abrams second,NOT FIRST,son.
Christians also loves where YWHW has a tastee virgin burn to himself.What a sweet savour to god's nostrols.Judg11
thedagonjones 1 month ago
Don't fuck with beards. Understand? Craig used to have a beard, but he couldn't handle it.
biggingeryeti 1 month ago 5
@MayonR "Price accuses Craig of appeal to authority but failed to note that Craig listed the facts that point to the veracity."
Facts? What facts? Craig has no use for them and they only appear in his arguments by accident.
"Price later has the audacity to try to inject Greco Roman mythologies, where it would be obvious that they adopted similarities from the account of Jesus."
Are you saying that Nicea (325 AD) predated Greek and pagan mythology, or even that Jesus did?
On which planet?
Terncote 1 month ago in playlist Favorite videos
This has been flagged as spam show
@Terncote [[Facts? What facts?]] He presents the facts in every debate for a couple decades at least. And of course he considers the facts. It's just that the facts in a case aren't where the foundation of a believer is. Not everyone is interested in historiography. But the common thread is a faith relying on one's own personal experience.
MayonR 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Terncote [[Are you saying that Nicea (325 AD) predated Greek and pagan mythology, or even that Jesus did?]] You are talking about a council that existed centuries after the fact. And the parallels are posited to be many centuries before, not in the same era. If they were in the same era and the similarities were close enough,would be considered to have come from the historical account.
MayonR 1 month ago
Price accuses Craig of appeal to authority but failed to note that Craig listed the facts that point to the veracity. If he mentions atheists who agree it is still not appeal to authority because the truth value is not based on who agrees but what they agree on. Price later has the audacity to try to inject Greco Roman mythologies, where it would be obvious that they adopted similarities from the account of Jesus. And Craig did point out that these similarities were incidental.
MayonR 1 month ago