Thunderf00t VS Science

Thunderf00t's position fails because he fails to turn his own skepticism against his own position. He may think he supports science, but his view ultimately weakens science to the same level of blind faith he might claim Theists use. What is needed is a robust epistemology not a silly statement such as "Science, it works Bitches." That's not real science.

Discussion on Hume:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6v3ZYt08fY

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Why
• do
• people
• laugh
• at
• creationists?
• (part
• 37)
• William
• Lane
• Craig
• David
• Hume

[ApatheticOmniscience]

Well, what tfoot did was show how deductive arguments cannot be used to understand certain aspects of science. For instance, before relativity, no one would have ever thought of concepts like length contraction, time dilation, relativity of simultaneity etc. because they're highly counter-intuitive. Relativity has proved our intuition based inferences to be quite erroneous. Yet WLC applies this very human intuition to something as immensely complicated as the "beginning" of the universe...

[owchywawa]

@ApatheticOmniscience That's not true either. Deductive arguments often lead to counter intuitive conclusions. Watch alifeofreason's video response to Thunderf00t. He deals with that.

[ApatheticOmniscience]

@owchywawa His account is closed... "This account has been suspended due to multiple or severe violations of YouTube's Copyright Policy."

-So you're going to have to explain this to me because I really don't see your point... I mean, if such arguments establish intuitive "truths" as premises, it seems, by definition, it can't reach a "counter intuitive conclusion" such as relativity.

[owchywawa]

@ApatheticOmniscience Basically, he mentioned Spinoza (someone Einstein said he most agreed with on God btw). Spinoza's entire method is deductive, and yet it leads to counter intuitive conclusions.

You don't have to start with intuitive truths as premises in deductive arguments. You can start with whatever premises you want.

[ThatMoralRelativism]

Can science prove science is correct?

[MrBeiragua]

@symelian That's true. I'm not saying that the kalam is "undebunkeble", I do really think Craig is wrong about infinity, time and begining of the universe. There are even theist that have good arguments against Craig's premises. The problem, as I said, is that thunderf00t doesn't even get close to those arguments. He just used plain and ineficient skepticism. I do really believe that kalam's premises are wrong, according to Wes Morriston's critics.

[ciuacoatl]

@VyckRo so you support Thunderfoot then.

[VyckRo]

@ciuacoatl

The problem is when you have highly educated then you begin to see through this T.Fool smoke!

[ciuacoatl]

@VyckRo only if you do not understand reasoning and logic in the first place. Then yes, he may have embarrassed himself in your eyes. If you have an education--then no he hasn't.

[VyckRo]

T.Fool has started a entire crusade against the entire William Craig, but so far only succeeded, embarrassed himself.

[symelian]

@MrBeiragua The problem is that craigs premises cannot be taken as universal truth ... we just don't know (yet) even what happened at time = 0, science hasn't gone there yet ... but you can use "the universe began to exist" as a premise and make conclusions from it ?? nope ...

[MrBeiragua]

The problem of thunderfoot is that he thought that Craig's premises are said to be true because they're intuitive, when in fact Craig has his arguments for them. To negate causation is to negate science, and thunderf00t said nothing about Craig's arguments for the premises, so he didn't even get close to debunk anything Craig said. Logical deduction is the method that theoretical science uses to create models, so to say that it's wrong is almost childish.

[Hardryv]

you're confused, o -- and you appear to understand neither basic logic nor science... I should have been able to vote this down at least twice.

[beechgrovejoe]

@JJLatBIM Simple basic ET in a local neighborhood. Light travels at a speed that is equal to the speed of the SOURCE + c. It can be treated ballistically just as SR does. The speed is constant until it interacts with something.

You still don't get that deSitter's argument was based on a ballistic description of light over a LONG distance. There is NO experimental evidence this assumption is correct. The farthest we have sent and received EMR is 0.002 light years.