Alert icon
We're changing our privacy policy. This stuff matters.  Learn more  Dismiss

Urbanelf is a Mime

Loading...

Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon
Upgrade to the latest Flash Player for improved playback performance. Upgrade now or more info.
205 views
Loading...
Alert icon
Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon

Uploaded by on Jun 23, 2010

I didn't even bother editing this video by urbanelf*. He quotes William Lane Craig in such a way as to show some type of contradiction. Of course, if you're trained in philosophy you'd know that Craig didn't contradict himself. Urbanelf obviously doesn't know the difference between a "deductive argument" and the "inference to the best explanation" (an explanation isn't the same as the INFERENCE to the best explanation). This is just another embarrassingly bad video made by yet another irrational youtube user.

* - William Lane Craig is Not an Abduction: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cDmOdBdw1U

Category:

Comedy

Tags:

License:

Standard YouTube License

  • likes, 4 dislikes

Link to this comment:

Share to:

Uploader Comments (rationalresponseguy)

  • Aside from Wikipedia, "The Philosopher's Toolkit" (Baggini), and the "Dictionary of Philosophy" (Penguin Books), both recite the C. S. Peirce popularization of what we call abductive reasoning.  That actual philosophers use the term abduction as urbanelf does, certainly bodes well for his position; and makes you look rather pathetic. Contemporary philosophers don't typically use the term 'abduction' in the original Aristotelian sense. A word can have more than one valid meaning, right?

  • @drchaffee Abduction is NOT the same as the "inference to the best explanation", stupid. theowarner and urbanelf say it is. The fact that you think urbanelf and theowarner (who believed that square circles existed) are good thinkers speaks wonders about you.

see all

All Comments (33)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • @theantihero420 Well, you're obviously a moron pretending to be a Christian. When Christ said turn the other cheek it didn't mean they hit it.

  • @rationalresponseguy I can understand your frustration with people, but (and this is assuming that you are a follower of Christ) it is not useful, kind, or Christ-like to insult people you are trying to present truth to, even if they are doing it to you. Christ himself tells us to turn the other cheek. If they are attacking you with insulting or derogatory words, be kind back to them. It is not becoming of a Christ follower to insult others like those of the world do. we are 2 set an example.

  • You failz on your definitions.

    As psychologists may tell you, calling everyone stupid can be a very revealing sign of... Well, I won't say here, it's more of a patient-doctor confidentialty issue.

  • @rationalresponseguy What do you suppose your insulting attitudes say about you?

    This is a direct quote from the "Dictionary of Philosophy" (Penguin Books): "Scientifically useful abduction is, then, INFERENCE TO THE BEST EXPLANATION." (Capitalization per the book). It's on page one of this book. Look it up, and check out a self-help book while you are at it.

  • @rationalresponseguy

    You have been challenged to offer a definition of abduction. Why don't you simply do it?

  • @rationalresponseguy So, according to you, an abduction is not an inference to the best explanation. What do you think abduction is?

  • @rationalresponseguy

    Immaterial square circles, not invisible. And again, I agree with you.

  • @rationalresponseguy

    I don't think you are getting a masters at USC in the philosophy of religion. But, you claimed that you were. Were you lying?

    What is abduction?

    Two questions you refuse to answer.

Loading...

Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more