The Humiliation of William Lane Craig

William Lane Craig, DIRECTLY AFTER chastising a fellow mythology merchant like himself for the ineptitude of merely name dropping philosophers then proceeds to 'refute' this man by name dropping over half a dozen philosophers names.

[pearz]

"Theological Realism" ...?

How did he even utter that phrase without immediately having a stroke?

[Psykomancer]

Being a philosopher without being a scientist is like saying "I don't care about facts, I only want to have an opinion".

[theapistevist]

"Holy shit!" That gets me every time. Such a classic.

[jacopman]

As a former creationist for 44 years I was ignorant of many aspect of the natural world. As soon as I began learning about the various scientific disciplines of biology, cosmology, quantum physics, etc. I realized that my explanation of these things through faith was a desire born out of hope and ancient superstitions and not reality.

It takes courage to face reality because it can have so many consequences socially and otherwise to admit something you believed with all you heart is wrong.

[andysnape]

I love how he pronounces "Kant"

[Sliphantom]

Who here pissed themselves laughing when the Unreal Tournament samples started playing? This is my new favorite tf00t video.

[SteepDescent]

This is written in one of his books:

"Finally, the charge of excessive footnotes! This is really the charge of a fallacious appeal to authority. But as Wesley Salmon puts it [...]"

Absolutely hilarious.

[Zarthustr]

The problem with Craig is that he uses the argument to get to a personal omnipotent beeing described in an old book. And he carris this baggage, which brings him to a point where he defines the killing of children as "intrinsically good"

[toshineon]

I had a good laugh at some of the comments here.

[integralmath]

@mistajames3213 I think you misunderstand the argument then. The problem isn't how often Craig cites others, or as you wrote "that Craig only cites 2 papers on average"; rather, it's that even his peers don't consider his academic contributions worth reference. And he's not early in his career; he's late in his career.

He doesn't contribute to the academic discourse. Of course, this isn't to say that he's wrong; it's that only the uneducated take him at all seriously.

[Zarthustr]

To cut a long story short …
Statement 1 was: That there is not enough evidence to believe in a god. (NEVER did I claim that there is no god for sure) – You could not refute this statement.
Statement 2 was: Even a perfect deductive argument does not get you to certainty, because you cannot be sure if your premises are correct – as I demonstrated and you could not refute this.

[TheRumpletiltskin]

THANK YOU FOR THE FPS SFX... haven't heard those in a while... i miss you counter strike.

[MoMember]

One of the best uses of the Quake sound board I've heard in a long time well done TF

[jungcontrarian]

Classic. Thanks Thunderf00t!! Love you man.

[integralmath]

@wisdominnature7 while we're at it, I'm looking back through history to see how many Nobel Prizes in the sciences have been handed out to philosophers for their contributions to science. I'm not really finding any. It's so odd that all of the people who are demanding that scientists have to take them seriously in matters of science aren't scientists. It's almost hard to imagine why we don't take non-scientists seriously when they try to lecture us on science. Almost hard, but not quite.

[integralmath]

@AgApE010 clearly I read what you said; it's how I was able to respond to it in the detailed way that I did. It has nothing whatever to do with theism or atheism; it has to do with shitty reasoning. And yes, it is Craig's use of logic. No student who demonstrated such understanding would make it out of one of my logic classes with a passing grade.

There are reasons Craig isn't taken as an academic by academicians. He's a hack.

[TrooperCX]

lol TF, the sound effects are HILARIOUS in this one.

[kleetha]

Craig's every argument can be reduced to his single, pathetic, fundamentalist mantra:

"My logic is true because it's based on the bible. The bible can't be wrong, so logically the bible is true. Since the bible is true, I am right. Since I am right, my logic is true."

[JohananRaatz]

@Hooya2 (part 2) No, remember an unconscious photodetector can measure the wave-function as well. The issue is, if the photodetector and the mind are fundamentally of the same stuff, (ie. monism is true) then it follows that whatever is going on ontologically with the photodetector is identical to whatever is going on ontologically with the mind. So the same process is shared by conscious and unconscious measuring devices alike -giving us a concrete bridge for the mind/body problem.

[Squagnut]

On the subject of namedropping, what gets me is all the people who drop WLC's name, as if he's a smart guy or something.