Just because somebody is a Cambridge Uni lecturer it doesn't mean they're smart...wtf

[ReptilianPeon]

For those who don't know, Dr. Arif Ahmed is a Senior Lecturer in the Faculty of Philosophy of the University of Cambridge, England, and has been since 2011. Hamza Tzortis, on the other hand, is a Saudi funded stooge with zero credentials and is somebody loves to copy William Lane-Craig. I'm struggling to make sense of this video. Towards the end of the video Hamza claims somebody who works for Cambridge University isn't necessarily clever.

Seeing as Hamza appears to have access to knowledge that has so far eluded science, perhaps he can also tell us why gravity is much weaker than the strong/weak nuclear forces and the electromagnetic force? Or maybe he can tell us if String Theory is correct? After all, he seems to know what was around before our universe, something which scientists around the globe have been struggling to understand. Maybe when Hamaza gets some science qualifications from real university I'll take him seriously.

Can anybody make sense of the below video? I still don't understand what "epistemic probability" is. I can't imagine his lackeys do either, not that it matters to them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tZeExFyARo

[Pyrrho]

First of all, it is true that working for Cambridge does not automatically make one correct.  But that is unimportant to the video.  You are watching a video made by idiots.  Their thinking is confused and muddled.  They do not properly define their supposed idea of "epistemic probability."  Giving an example is not giving a definition.  Basically, it seems that they just do not know what they are talking about, but are too stupid to know that.

[ReptilianPeon]

First of all, it is true that working for Cambridge does not automatically make one correct.  But that is unimportant to the video.  You are watching a video made by idiots.  Their thinking is confused and muddled.  They do not properly define their supposed idea of "epistemic probability."  Giving an example is not giving a definition.  Basically, it seems that they just do not know what they are talking about, but are too stupid to know that.

Yes, you're right about working at Cambridge. I guess I was too confused and amused by the video to be thinking straight at the time. But, don't you think that to sound as stupid as they do they must know that they are acting stupidly? That's argument I see used against Fox News and I'm sure the same can me said about many religionists. They don't want you think that they are idiots because they want your money.

For example, DawahMan raised £32,000 for a dying baby in 2014 but the money seems to have disappeared. And he refuses to say what happened to the money... My guess is that it has been used to fund his lavish life style and got spent on designer clothing.

[Pyrrho]

Yes, you're right about working at Cambridge. I guess I was too confused and amused by the video to be thinking straight at the time. But, don't you think that to sound as stupid as they do they must know that they are acting stupidly? ...

John Cleese says it well:





If it will not load, see:

http://crooksandliars.com/2014/09/monty-...-news-fans