(February 28, 2016 at 9:44 am)robvalue Wrote: That is a great video, thank you!
This confirms yet further what a slimy, dishonest weasel WLC is. He knows full well what he's doing, and he hides the fallacies and equivocations behind walls of text and plays both sides seamlessly.
As I predicted, logical fallacies, and philosophy without evidence. That's all apologetics is, and it's why it achieves fuck all except reassuring those who already believe. Oh, and makes him rich. Con artist. He may believe his conclusion, but he knows his methodology is flawed.
Theoretical Bullshit is kind of a fun channel. Strangely enough the guy is a soap opera star in the Bold an the beautiful (It made me laugh). Elegantly challenging my own 100% unfounded stereotype of the soap opera actor. Without breaking a sweat he destroys the kalam argument that has been defended by a dr in philosophy an theologie.....it still makes me smile.
I would love to see other "arguments" being dismantled by someone smatter than me, or atleast better bespoken than me. Like the fine tuning argument for gods existence. I like what sean carrol had to say about that:
"First, I am by no means convinced that there is a fine-tuning problem and, again, Dr. Craig offered no evidence for it. It is certainly true that if you change the parameters of nature our local conditions that we observe around us would change by a lot. I grant that quickly. I do not grant therefore life could not exist. I will start granting that once someone tells me the conditions under which life can exist. What is the definition of life, for example? If it’s just information processing, thinking or something like that, there’s a huge panoply of possibilities. They sound very “science fiction-y” but then again you’re the one who is changing the parameters of the universe. The results are going to sound like they come from a science fiction novel. Sadly, we just don’t know whether life could exist if the conditions of our universe were very different because we only see the universe that we see.
Secondly, God doesn’t need to fine-tune anything. We talk about the parameters of physics and cosmology: the mass of the election, the strength of gravity. And we say if they weren’t the numbers that they were then life itself could not exist. That really underestimates God by a lot, which is surprising from theists, I think. In theism, life is not purely physical. It’s not purely a collection of atoms doing things like it is in naturalism. I would think that no matter what the atoms were doing God could still create life. God doesn’t care what the mass of the electron is. He can do what he wants. The only framework in which you can honestly say that the physical parameters of the universe must take on certain values in order for life to exist is naturalism.
The third point is that the fine-tunings you think are there might go away once you understand the universe better. They might only be apparent. There’s a famous example theists like to give, or even cosmologists who haven’t thought about it enough, that the expansion rate of the early universe is tuned to within 1 part in 1060. That’s the naïve estimate, back of the envelope, pencil and paper you would do. But in this case you can do better. You can go into the equations of general relativity and there is a correct rigorous derivation of the probability. If you ask the same question using the correct equations you find that the probability is 1. All set of measure zeroof early universe cosmologies have the right expansion rate to live for a long time and allow life to exist. I can’t say that all parameters fit into that paradigm but until we know the answer we can’t claim that they’re definitely finely-tuned."
