RE: Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 37) William Lane Craig (a response to thunderf00t)

I tear apart unsophisticated and all around stupid ass thunderf00t's video "Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 37) William Lane Craig" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4u6Mz21jTaA

Clearly, thunderf00t has no understanding of basic philosophy or the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Why
• do
• people
• laugh
• at
• creationists?
• (part
• 37)
• William
• Lane
• Craig
• christian
• christianity
• creation
• god
• Comedy
• Funny
• Creationism
• Clark
• Superman
• WLC
• reasonable
• faith
• my
• ass
• fun
• Humor
• Hilarious
• science
• relativity
• einstein
• darwin
• dawkins
• debate
• richard
• Lawrence
• Krauss
• big
• bang
• origin
• of
• the
• universe
• kalam
• cosmological
• argument
• pwned
• bitches
• it
• works
• Intelligent
• thunderf00t
• thunderfoot

[EDog866]

Creationist =/= young earth creationist.

[xxxxlogicxxxx]

Consider the first premise “whatever begins to exist has a cause”, for this first premise to be correct everything that begins to exist – including the universe – has a cause.

Taking into consideration the second statement “the universe began to exist”, the conclusion the universe has a cause follows directly.

Therefore, the Kalem Cosmological Argument proves that the universe has a cause by presupposing that the universe has a cause; a logical fallacy.

[DogmasDemise]

@exposed2000 John, your critique FAILS hard, I don't think you payed attention AT ALL to what Thunderf00t was saying so let's try to translate that:

TF doesn't believe that the premises of Kalam are necessarily true. His argument is that human intuition is not reliable at the "very small" (quantum) or the "very high" (relativity). I know TF wasn't being very clear, but at least try to address these points rather than silly strawmen.

[SIC66SIC66]

Religious people are pathetic people.......

[lxAgnosticxl]

@Rawlsrocks

The taxi cab fallacy is a type of speacial pleading.

[lxAgnosticxl]

@Rawlsrocks

Hawing does believe in the big bang his model has envolves a reigne in sapce rather than a singularity , but its very honest of you to admit that thanks.

Hawking has defended more than 1 model, and he does believe the universe came into existance.

[Rawlsrocks]

@lxAgnosticxl

> i did answer that

My mistake. I somehow read past that part of your post. However you are wrong about my source. It's not just wikipedia but: nizkor . o r g, theskepticsguide . o r g, logicalfallacies . i n f o, onegoodmove . o r g, a list from csun . e d u and many more.

Whether it is found in text books I don't know. But the absence of it on all these websites and the presence in some (counter-)apologist websites (streetapologetics, ironchariots) is telling ...

[Rawlsrocks]

@lxAgnosticxl

Big Bang & singularity: I've checked the source and it seems I was wrong insofar as Hawking & others came up with a new theory for the formation of the universe that doesn't require a singularity, and right insofar as Hawkings new theory doesn't really include a big bang (in his model the total energy of the universe is 0!). So it's not a big bang theory.

Btw:

Do you realize that Hawkings model proposes a universe without a beginning and therefore without a cause?